Challen v Queensland Health [2008] QIRC 61 (2008) 188 QGIG 256

[Extract from Queensland Government Industrial Gazette, Dated 11 July 2008, Vol. 188, No. 11, pages 256-266] QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1999 - s. 74 - application for reinstatement Cindy Challen AND Queensland Health (TD/2007/44) COMMISSIONER ASBURY 3 July 2008 Application for reinstatement - Whether applicant offered permanent position - Respondent maintains applicant was not dismissed - Applicant made complaints and lodged grievance against managers - Finding that applicant was unfairly treated - No reasonable explanation provided by employer for failure to provide employee with work - Applicant may have other remedies against the respondent for failure to provide work and unfair treatment - Finding that the applicant was a short term casual employee - Application for reinstatement dismissed. DECISION 1. Overview This is an application by Ms Cindy Challen under s. 74 of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 (the Act) for reinstatement to a permanent position in Food and Retail Services at the Royal Brisbane Hospital. The respondent in the matter is Queensland Health. Ms Challen's application for reinstatement filed on 2 April 2007 states that she was dismissed from the position of café Supervisor. In the hearing of the application Ms Challen sought reinstatement "as per my permanent working agreement". The factual situation and the events surrounding Ms Challen's employment with Queensland Health is complex. At the heart of the matter is the status of Ms Challen's employment. Essentially, Ms Challen contends that after commencing employment on 13 February 2006 as a casual employee, she was offered a permanent part-time position at the level of OO2/3 on or around 22 May 2006 and accepted that position. According to Ms Challen the offer was made by Duty Manager Mr Brent Deller and accepted by way of a form known as an "Employee Movements form" which was signed by Ms Challen and the Manager of Food and Retail Services, Mr Don Bambry. Ms Challen alleges that the Employee Movements form appointing her to a permanent part-time position has been removed from her personnel file. Queensland Health contends that there was no such appointment or form, and the process described by Ms Challen would have breached standards, policies and procedures for such appointments within the public sector. Ms Challen contends that before she started to work in the permanent part-time OO2/3 position, she was offered a supervisory position under what was termed a "temporary contract" at level OO3. The temporary contract was renewed on a monthly basis for the period from 12 June 2006 until 22 October 2006. This contract and the renewal of its terms were recorded on Employee Movements forms. During that period, Ms Challen was paid as a permanent employee and received accrued leave entitlements, consistent with the practices of Queensland Health with respect to temporary contracts. After taking up the supervisory position, Ms Challen made a number of complaints to managers about staffing levels. On 28 September 2006 Ms Challen met with Mr Bambry about her concerns. On 4 October 2006 Ms Challen wrote a letter of complaint to Mr Bambry detailing her complaints. Ms Challen alleges that she was warned by another Manager that Mr Bambry did not like complaints being put in writing and that there would be repercussions. After receiving Ms Challen's letter of complaint, Mr Bambry decided not to renew her temporary contract. Mr Bambry contended that this decision had nothing to do with the fact that Ms Challen had made a complaint but was based on his view that despite support and assistance being provided to Ms Challen her supervisory skills were not going to improve. Ms Challen was advised of this decision on or around 10 October 2006. Ms Challen lodged a formal grievance against Mr Bambry and Ms Maria Wallace, Acting Manager Food Services, on 20 October 2006. While that grievance was being investigated Ms Challen was moved to another part of the workplace, so that she would not come into contact with managers involved in the grievance. Ms Challen was scheduled to take leave from November 2006 and Mr Bambry decided that Ms Challen would continue to be paid at the OO3 level until that time. Queensland Health also contends that Ms Challen was not dismissed, but remains listed on its database as a "call in" casual employee. Further, Queensland Health contends that Ms Challen has refused work which has been offered to her and has failed to advise of her availability for work. Ms Challen contends that she has sought work and has been told that there is none available. -- 1 of 11 -- 2 2. Evidence Evidence in support of the application for reinstatement was given by the applicant Ms Challen and:  Mickelle CORBIN, former employee of Queensland Health employed in Café Nescafe while Ms Challen was Supervisor;  Jessica PACKHAM, former employee of Queensland Health employed in Café Nescafe while Ms Challen was Supervisor;  Natasha BENNETT, of Queensland Health employed in Café Nescafe while Ms Challen was Supervisor;  Ms Danica BROWN, Allocations Co-ordinator. Evidence was given for Queensland Health by:  Mr Donald Craig BAMBRY, Manager of Food and Retail Services at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital;  Mr Owen Russell FRASER, Project Officer, Queensland Health;  Irma Birgitta (Nim) HONE, Manager Employee Relations, Royal Brisbane Hospital; and  Ryan James DELLER, Project Officer. The documentary evidence provided by Ms Challen was extensive, and it was tendered as attachments to Ms Challen's affidavit (Exhibit A1) without objection from the respondent. In particular there is a lengthy document entitled: "Investigation Report Grievance Allegations Made By Ms Cindy Challen Against Mr Don Bambry, Acting Manager Food and Retail Services and Ms Maria Wallace, Acting Manager Food Services" which contains thirteen bundles of enclosures. Those enclosures include transcripts of interviews with the key players in the present case, some of whom gave evidence in these proceedings. I have considered this material where it is relevant to the issues in dispute. Generally I found Ms Challen, Ms Corbin, Ms Packham, Ms Bennett and Ms Brown to be credible witnesses. I also found Ms Hone and Mr Fraser to be credible witnesses. In contrast, Mr Bambry and Mr Deller were evasive; made claims in their evidence-in-chief which they departed from in cross-examination; and failed to provide satisfactory explanations for contradictions between the evidence they gave and the evidence of witnesses for Ms Challen. In general where there has been a conflict between the evidence of Mr Bambry and Mr Deller and that of other witnesses, I have preferred the evidence of those other witnesses. 3. The issues in dispute The issues in dispute are:  Ms Challen's employment status within Queensland Health;  Whether Ms Challen is excluded from bringing an application for reinstatement;  Whether Ms Challen was dismissed; and  If Ms Challen is not an excluded employee and was dismissed, was the dismissal unfair? These issues were identified by Counsel for Queensland Health, and the case was conducted in relation to all of them. 4. Ms Challen's Employment Status Ms Challen commenced employment with Queensland Health as a casual Food and Retail Services Operator on 13 February 2006 (Letter of Offer Exhibit R1 DCB2). According to Ms Challen, on approximately 22 May 2006 she was offered a permanent part-time position by Mr Brent Deller, the then Duty Manager, to ensure that she would work in Café Nescafe five days per week. Ms Challen said that she negotiated her rate of pay and working hours with Mr Brent Deller, and it was agreed that she would be employed at the level OO2/4. Ms Challen said that she did this because taking up a position where she would be required to work five days would mean that she could no longer work in her second job on Fridays and she required some stability in order to give up that second job. Mr Ryan Deller (who then worked in the Food and Retail Services and Patient Support Services Allocations area) drew up "paperwork" relating to the offer of the part-time position, and this was signed by Ms Challen and Mr Don Bambry, Manager of Food and Retail Services. Mr Ryan Deller later told Ms Challen that an increase to that level in one jump had not been approved by "HR" and Ms Challen agreed to be paid at the level OO2/3. Further "paperwork" was filled out to record this and signed by Mr Bambry and Ms Challen. Ms Challen said that this paperwork was an Employee Movements form. -- 2 of 11 -- 3 Shortly after signing the Employee Movements form in relation to the permanent part-time position, Ms Challen became aware that the Supervisor of Café Nescafe had resigned, and approached Mr Brent Deller expressing an interest in filling that position. Mr Brent Deller told Ms Challen that it was a month-to-month contract, and the pay level was OO3. Ms Challen said that approximately one week after signing the Employee Movements form changing the basis of her employment to permanent part-time, she signed a further Employee Movements form giving effect to a temporary month to month appointment as a Supervisor at pay level OO3. There is a handwritten note in the Employee Schedule Report (Exhibit A1 Appendix 2 Enclosure 10) indicating that Ms Challen started supervising on 29 May 2006. On Monday 19 June 2006, Ms Challen's classification level is shown in that report as being OO3. Also contained in Enclosure 10 are four Employee Movements forms for the following periods:  12 June - 16 July 2006;  17 July - 13 August 2006;  14 August - 24 September 2006;  25 September - 22 October 2006. Each of those forms indicates that Ms Challen's then current position was that of a Retail Attendant at level OO2. On each form a box is ticked or marked to indicate that the type of employment was casual. Each form also indicates that the proposed position subject of the movements form is Retail Supervisor at level OO3. Boxes are ticked or marked to indicate that the type of employment relating to this position is full-time and temporary. In response to a question from the Commission, Ms Challen said that she did not notice that each of these Employee Movement forms indicated that she was a casual employee acting in a series of temporary engagements, because the forms were simply put in front of her and she was asked to sign them. Further, the forms were not provided to Ms Challen so that she could peruse them or take them home. Ms Challen maintained that at the time she accepted the temporary OO3 Supervisor position she believed that she held a permanent part-time position at pay level OO2. Under cross-examination, Ms Challen agreed that she had not made an application for such a position or gone through a formal interview. Ms Challen also agreed that the sum total of her evidence on this point was that Mr Brent Deller offered her a permanent part-time position at pay level OO2; necessary paperwork reflecting the offered position was signed by Mr Bambry; Ms Danica Brown in the Human Resources Department had seen that paperwork and would give evidence to that effect; and Ms Challen had given the paperwork to Mr Ryan Deller. Ms Brown said in her oral evidence that an Employee Movements form could be used to record an employee's status changing from casual to permanent. Ms Brown also said that she had handled an Employee Movements form recording Ms Challen's employment changing from casual to permanent part-time. Allocations had been instructed by Mr Bambry to do a "prior recognition service" for Ms Challen. The relevant paperwork had been filled out by Mr Ryan Deller and had been forwarded to the Human Resources Department. That process sought a classification of OO2/4 for Ms Challen, and this had not been approved. The Human Resources Department had agreed that Ms Challen should be classified at the level OO2/3 and another Employee Movements form had been completed to reflect this. This form also indicated that Ms Challen was being appointed to a permanent part-time position. The form was signed by Mr Bambry and Ms Challen. Ms Brown took a copy of the form and placed it on Ms Challen's personnel file. The original of the form was handed by Ms Brown to Mr Deller to be sent to the Human Resources Department. In response to a question from the Commission, Ms Brown said that the Employee Movements form had indicated that the basis of Ms Challen's employment was changing from casual to permanent part-time, with hours of work being 60 per fortnight. Ms Brown said that, at some point the filing cabinet containing Ms Challen's file had been moved from the Allocations office to Mr Bambry's office. Under cross examination, Ms Brown maintained that she had seen paperwork changing the status of Ms Challen's employment from casual to permanent part-time and that she was absolutely certain that Ms Challen had been offered a permanent part-time role. Ms Brown said that she knew that Ms Challen was working four eight hour shifts per week as a casual employee and had been offered five six hour shifts per week as a permanent part-time employee. Ms Brown also maintained that the paperwork she had seen in this regard was not that dealing with Ms Challen's temporary position as a Supervisor at pay level OO3. Ms Brown was shown two emails dated 20 November 2006 and 27 November 2006. The first email dated 20 November 2006, from Ms Brown to Ms Ralda McGregor states: "I have spoken to Ian McMahon (HR) in regards Cindy's substantive position and it seems she is substantively a OO2 Casual. I have also checked my copies of Employee Movement's forms and I have the same as HR.". -- 3 of 11 -- 4 The email dated 27 November 2006 from Ms Brown to Mr Ian McMahon, states as follows: "Cindy Challen has gone on leave as from today 27.11.06, she is casual OO3 and is to be paid all her leave entitlements at OO3 (cas) please. She will (may) return 2.02.07.". It was put to Ms Brown that the statements in these emails about the status of Ms Challen's employment were at odds with her evidence to the Commission. Ms Brown said that at the time she sent these emails she could not locate the paperwork on Ms Challen's file which indicated that she was a permanent part-time employee. Further, Mr Bambry had told Ms Brown that Ms Challen was a casual employee and that when Ms Challen came back from holidays there would be no work for her. Mr Bambry also told Ms Brown not to ask any questions about Ms Challen. Mr Bambry said in his evidence-in-chief that Ms Challen commenced employment as an "on call" casual on 14 February 2006. Attached to Mr Bambry's (Exhibit R1) as DCB-2 is a letter offering Ms Challen the position of Food Services Officer Retail on a casual basis. The letter makes no reference to the position being an "on call" casual. The letter does state that if Ms Challen is placed on a temporary roster at any time in the future, she will be required to complete an Employee Movements Form. According to Mr Bambry, on 25 May 2006 Ms Challen accepted a temporary contract recorded on an Employee Movements form for the position of Supervisor of Café Nescafe for the period from 12 June to 16 July 2006. Ms Challen subsequently signed further Employee Movements forms taking her up to 22 October 2006. The temporary vacancy for this position arose because Mr Brent Deller was acting up in the Duty Manager's position in a temporary capacity while Mr Darren Schubert was acting in the Retail Co-ordinator's position. The Supervisor's position in Café Nescafe was temporary because the commercial viability of that Café as a stand-alone operation was being tested. Mr Bambry maintained that Ms Challen was not offered a permanent part-time position prior to her taking the temporary Supervisor position. Mr Bambry also denied that he told Ms Challen that the paperwork relating to such a position was on his desk. According to Mr Bambry at a meeting on 17 October 2006 where Ms Challen alleged that she had been offered such a position, Mr Bambry might have said that Ms Challen's personnel file or "some" paperwork was on his desk. According to Mr Bambry the normal process for offering permanent employment for a base level OO2 position, would be to advertise the position internally and go through a recruitment process. The minimum level of advertising would be for Expressions of Interest to be called for in the OO2 position. In order for Ms Challen to be offered such a position, whether by Mr Schubert or Mr Deller, a merit selection recruitment process would have been required, and Mr Bambry would have had to approve such an appointment. Mr Bambry said that he had never seen any paperwork relating to a merit selection process completed by Ms Challen for a permanent position. Even if the paperwork had been lost, there would have been a record of such an appointment on the Employee Records system. At the time Ms Challen alleges that she was offered a permanent position at OO2 level, such a position did not exist and there is no record of this on the system. Mr Bambry said that his understanding of Ms Challen's employment status was that she was employed as a casual at level OO2 and was then put into a temporary position at level OO3. Employee Movements forms were designed so that casual employees could be given fixed term work on a month-to-month basis to fill in for other employees who may be on leave. These forms could not be used to change the basis of employment from casual to permanent. Mr Bambry also said that he had not hired people without going through appropriate channels. Ms Challen had made application for recognition of prior learning, and Mr Bambry may have signed that application. This process related to pay levels and not to employment status. Under cross-examination Mr Bambry said that he might have signed an Employee Movements form to change Ms Challen's pay level from OO2/1 to a OO2/3 and that this could have been based on Ms Challen's past work experience. However, Mr Bambry rejected the proposition that this form changed the status of Ms Challen's employment from casual to permanent, maintaining that even if this form had been lost, the change would have been recorded in the computer system dealing with employee records, and it had not been. It was not put to Mr Bambry that he had removed any paperwork from Ms Challen's personnel file. Mr Fraser said that generally, Employee Movements forms are only used for vacant positions, for example when someone goes on leave or is off work on worker's compensation. When Mr Fraser first took control of the Allocations team he noticed that the vast majority of staff in Retail Services were employed as casuals. This caused Mr Fraser concern for a number of reasons including that:  the relevant award states that this should not occur and unions did not like Queensland Health staff being employed on a casual basis; and  it creates extra work for the Allocations team and Payroll as casual staff cannot be put on a roster, but have to ring through to payroll instead of being put on a roster like temporary and permanent staff. -- 4 of 11 -- 5 Mr Fraser said that he discussed this matter with Mr Bambry in or around July 2006, and insisted that casual staff be put on temporary movement forms. In December 2006 Mr Bambry and Mr Fraser had a further conversation where Mr Bambry agreed that in the New Year he would advertise permanent positions. According to Mr Fraser, Ms Challen's employee schedule report shows that before she was acting in the Supervisor position at level OO3, she did not have a regular schedule of shifts. This report also indicates that Ms Challen was on worker's compensation for a period. Mr Fraser said that he came on to the scene in Food and Retail Services on 1 July 2006, and prior to that had nothing to do with the rostering and administration of Food and Retail Staff. In order for an employee to go from casual to permanent employment, there would have to be a merit based selection process other than in exceptional circumstances. Such a process would generate numerous pieces of paper or electronic records related to approvals to recruit staff; advertising and calling for expressions of interest in positions; position descriptions and selection criteria. Positions at level OO3 and above must be advertised externally while positions at OO2 can be advertised internally. A recruitment package would be prepared and candidates would be interviewed and shortlisted, before a selection was made. It was put to Mr Fraser that Ms Challen's evidence was that she signed an Employee Movements form that transferred her from being a OO2 casual to a OO2/3 permanent part-time employee and Mr Fraser was asked to comment on whether this would be possible. Mr Fraser said in response to this question: "Only after a recruitment process like I've described because that - that is the other thing. You get peoples - people's status change from casual to temporary to permanent they must sign off to get them into the - into the system so to speak, into the payroll system, the appropriate paperwork must be signed off.". (Transcript 131 lines 25 - 30) In response to a question about what that paperwork would consist of, Mr Fraser said it was a single form and he could not recall whether it was called an Employee Movements form. Whatever the form is called, it is a single document which confirms the job with the authority of the executive person who signed off the job. In the area in which Ms Challen worked, the person with executive authority to sign off on an appointment is Mr Jeff Hitchings. In response to a question about whether Mr Bambry had authority to sign off on Ms Challen's form, Mr Fraser said: "Technically no...". According to Mr Fraser, once the document had been signed by a person in authority, it went to the payroll section and details were put into the payroll system. There was no indication on the payroll system that Ms Challen's substantive position was other than that of a casual employee. In cross-examination, Mr Fraser was asked about comments he made in an interview with Mr Stephen Peacock in relation to the investigation of Ms Challen's grievance with Ms Wallace and Mr Bambry, to the effect that Mr Bambry did not follow procedures with employment. Mr Fraser said that these comments related to recruitment in Food Services generally, and not to one specific instance. Mr Fraser agreed that Mr Bambry did not always follow procedures relating to employment. Mr Fraser also said that when Ms Challen left to go overseas she would not have been required to apply for leave as she was a casual employee. What would have occurred is that Ms Challen would have been paid a lump sum for leave she accrued while temporarily working at the OO3 level and her status would have reverted back to that of a casual employee. Mr Fraser said he could not comment on whether Ms Challen was required to complete an Application for Leave form, because he had not asked Ms Challen to do so. Appended to Ms Challen's witness statement (Exhibit A1) was an Application for Leave form, completed by Ms Challen on 24 November 2006, seeking leave from 27 November 2006 until 5 February 2007. The application was apparently processed on 4 December 2006, and the word "casual" has been written on the bottom of the form, probably by the person who processed it. Mr Fraser was not asked to comment on that form. Ms Hone's dealings with Ms Challen began in October 2006, when she was approached by Mr Hitchings, Director of Corporate Affairs, and asked to facilitate a meeting between Ms Challen and Mr Bambry regarding some concerns Ms Challen had. This meeting was held on 17 October 2006. Ms Hone said that at this meeting, among other issues, Ms Challen alleged that she was offered the choice of a permanent part-time position at OO2 level or a temporary OO3 contract by Mr Darren Schubert and Ms Maria Wallace. According to Ms Hone, Ms Challen said that she had chosen the temporary position and the paperwork for the permanent position was on Mr Bambry's desk. Ms Hone said that Mr Bambry stated that if there was paperwork on his desk then he would have a look at it. Ms Hone said that the major topic of the meeting was that Ms Challen's contract at OO3 was not renewed. After the meeting on 17 October 2006 Ms Hone asked Mr Bambry to look on his desk for paperwork in relation to Ms Challen's allegation that she had been offered a temporary position. No such documentation had been located for Ms Challen either electronically or physically. -- 5 of 11 -- 6 Ms Hone also gave evidence about legislation and industrial instruments relevant to the employment of Operational Officers such as Ms Challen. There are also policies contained in the Integrated HR/IR Resources Manual, with such policies being referred to as IRMs. Some of these IRMs put into effect legislative obligations or Directives issued under the Health Services Act 1991, while others provided guidance for relevant staff to follow in regards to various employment issues. Attached to Ms Hone's statement (Exhibit R3) were a number of IRMs and Directives relating to recruitment for permanent positions (Appendices NH5 - NH12). According to Ms Hone's evidence, the effect of these IRMs and Directives is that permanent positions at OO2 level can be advertised internally, which means that advertisements for such positions do not need to be placed in the Queensland Government Gazette or the The Courier Mail, but can be made known within the Hospital through emails to Managers or notices on boards. However, unless there are exceptional circumstances, appointments to all permanent positions including those at level OO2 must be made on merit. This involves a selection committee being formed to consider all applicants both internal and external, and making a recommendation to the relevant decision maker. Once an applicant has been selected for a permanent position, there are a number of other steps that occur before the person is formally appointed, which must be taken for all successful applicants whether sourced internally or externally. These steps are reference and criminal record checks and sending out an appointment letter. If Ms Challen had been offered a permanent appointment there would have to be paperwork such as:  a position description including a vacancy reference number;  a job application;  selection materials used by a selection committee;  appointment letter; and  evidence of reference and criminal record checks. Exceptional circumstances would apply where there was a pool of casuals or people who had been in temporary positions for quite a while within an area, and a position became available. In these circumstances there would be a closed merit process where only those persons would apply for the position. In response to a question from the Commission, Ms Hone said that it was agreed that Ms Challen would continue to be paid at level OO3 while her grievance was dealt with, and until she went overseas. Ms Hone also said that, for the final pay period before Ms Challen went overseas she was paid as a casual employee, and was paid out all of the recreation leave accrued during her temporary engagements. Shortly before Ms Challen went on her overseas holiday, Ms Challen telephoned Ms Hone to query what the status of her employment would be upon her return. Ms Hone told Ms Challen that the OO3 Supervisor's position could not be held open while Ms Challen was on leave, and that she would be returning to the casual pool of employees and would have to ring and advise her availability for work. According to Ms Hone, Ms Challen was not upset or agitated and she thought that Ms Challen understood this and was not concerned that her employment status would return to casual after her trip. On 1 February 2007, Ms Hone had a further conversation with Ms Challen about her employment status. When Ms Hone told Ms Challen that her employment was casual, Ms Challen became angry and said that this was not what she had been told previously. On 6 February 2007 Ms Challen sent an email to Ms Hone which among other issues, alleged that Ms Challen had been guaranteed that she would continue her duties on her return from leave, and that the status quo had been broken (NH22 Exhibit R3). According to Ms Hone, Ms Challen's details are still listed on the employee reference data base (LATTICE) as a casual employee, and Ms Challen's employment has not been terminated. Ms Hone also said that she was not aware of any direction to Allocations not to provide Ms Challen with work. Under cross-examination, Ms Hone said that an Employee Movements form could not be used to change the status of a person's employment from casual to permanent part-time. The Employee Movements form would be the "top" form and under it would be other paperwork relating to the process that had been used to select the employee for the position, including the application, interview, referree check and criminal history check. In response to the proposition that Mr Bambry could simply sign an Employee Movements form to change the basis of Ms Challen's employment from casual to permanent, Ms Hone said that Mr Bambry could not do this because it was contrary to the IRMs and procedures that were in place. If this was occurring it had to be rectified. Ms Hone confirmed that there had been an investigation into failure to follow correct employment procedures, and any disciplinary action against Mr Bambry which may have come out of such an investigation is confidential. Mr Ryan Deller said in his evidence that there is a process within Queensland Health where employees with previous experience can seek to have the experience recognised in accordance with IRM 4.2-5 Recognition of Previous Service and/or Experience for Salary and Increment Purposes. This process is undertaken by an employee completing an RPL form and providing copies of relevant documentation to establish previous service or experience. Mr Deller said that he could recall providing a blank copy of an RPL form to Ms Challen, which Ms Challen completed attaching relevant documentation, and returned to Mr Deller. Ms Challen had qualifications as a pastry chef and had worked at McDonalds. Ms Challen hoped to increase her paypoint from OO2/1 to OO2/3 or OO2/4. The form had been -- 6 of 11 -- 7 completed by Ms Challen approximately two or three months after she commenced employment with Queensland Health. Mr Deller forwarded the form and supporting documentation to the Human Resources Department. Mr Deller also recalled that there may have been problems with the form either because Ms Challen did not complete it within one month of commencing employment, or that the movement between bands exceeded the maximum allowed under the RPL process. Mr Deller told Ms Challen that her application for recognition of prior service was not going to be progressed by Payroll and that if she wanted to pursue this further she should speak to Mr Bambry or her Duty Manager. According to Mr Deller, the same form is used for temporary employee movements and for permanent movements, with different boxes being ticked in each circumstance. In the case of a permanent movement, there is additional documentation. Ms Challen might have been confused in relation to various documents and believed that a form dealing with her temporary movement to the OO3 Supervisory position or a form dealing with recognition of prior learning, were an offer of permanent employment. Mr Deller said that to his knowledge Ms Challen was never offered a permanent position, and outlined the necessary documentation which must be created in the process of offering such a position. According to Mr Deller, in addition to that documentation, vacant positions are often temporarily filled (on a temporary contract basis) while the position was being advertised and the process for filling the position permanently is undertaken. If Ms Challen was offered a permanent contract, Mr Deller would have been involved in preparing some of the paperwork in relation to the temporary contract while the application process was undertaken. Mr Deller was never asked to, and did not prepare any such paperwork. Under cross-examination, Mr Deller agreed that if Ms Challen had completed documentation in relation to recognition of prior learning, he would have sent the originals to the Human Resources section and placed a copy on Ms Challen's personnel file. Mr Deller said that he had no recollection of having placed it there and had no knowledge of whether such paperwork existed. Counsel for Queensland Health confirmed that there was no paperwork dealing with recognition of prior learning on Ms Challen's file. Mr Deller said that Allocations staff and Mr Bambry would have had access to Ms Challen's personnel file. It was put to Mr Deller by the Commission that he said in his witness statement that he was never asked to and did not prepare paperwork changing Ms Challen's employment status from casual to permanent, and in his oral evidence that he did not remember whether or not he had prepared such paperwork. Mr Deller said that his evidence was that he did not remember having prepared such paperwork. Mr Deller said that he did recall having prepared paperwork dealing with recognition of Ms Challen's prior experience as a pastry chef and as an employee of McDonalds. Mr Brent Deller was not called to give evidence. Mr Ryan Deller confirmed that he is in contact with Mr Brent Deller who is his brother. Counsel for Queensland Health said that it was believed that there was no need to call Mr Brent Deller, because it was Queensland Health's view that Ms Challen was alleging that she had been offered the permanent part-time position by Mr Darren Schubert. This is at odds with Ms Challen's previous statements including the allegations made in her interview with Mr Peacock as part of the investigation of her grievance with Mr Bambry and Ms Wallace. I cannot see any evidence of Ms Challen alleging that the offer of permanent employment was made by Mr Schubert. In any event, Mr Schubert was not called by Queensland Health. It is also the case that Ms Challen did not call Mr Brent Deller as a witness and could have done so. In the circumstances, I am not prepared to draw any inference about the failure of either party to call Mr Brent Deller. There are significant conflicts in the evidence about Ms Challen's employment status particularly in the evidence of Ms Challen and Ms Brown on the one hand, and Mr Bambry and Mr Deller on the other. Mr Bambry and Mr Deller were evasive when answering questions under cross-examination. Furthermore it was not put to Ms Challen or Ms Brown that they were being untruthful and both were very clear and did not depart from their versions of events under cross-examination. Overall, I preferred the evidence of Ms Challen and Ms Brown. However, even if all of the evidence on behalf of Ms Challen in relation to the proposition that she was offered and accepted a permanent position is accepted, it is not sufficient to establish that there was a binding contract between Ms Challen and Queensland Health under which Ms Challen would be employed on a permanent basis. I accept that there probably was a discussion between Ms Challen and Mr Brent Deller about terms under which Ms Challen would be employed on a permanent basis, and that an Employee Movements form reflecting this discussion was completed. I am unable to make any finding about why this form is not on Ms Challen's personnel file or that it was deliberately removed. The proposition that the form was deliberately removed was not put to any of the witnesses for Queensland Health. Further, the fact that a form dealing with recognition of prior learning is also missing suggests that any missing paperwork is accidental, as the existence of the form dealing with recognition of prior learning would have assisted any argument on the part of Queensland Health about Ms Challen confusing the two forms. -- 7 of 11 -- 8 That Mr Brent Deller and Ms Challen had discussions about a permanent position, did not constitute an offer of such a position by Queensland Health that was capable of acceptance by Ms Challen. I am also of the view that an Employee Movements form could not, by itself, constitute an offer of permanent employment capable of acceptance by Ms Challen. In my view an Employee Movements form is a multi-purpose form which records changes to an employee's employment for administrative purposes. The Employee Movements form does not in itself put those changes into effect. This is clear from the form itself, and from the other policy documents which were in evidence before the Commission. In respect of a temporary/fixed term appointment, IRM 1.2 requires that the terms of such an appointment are to be provided in writing in the form of an appointment letter. In the case of permanent appointments, the relevant IRMs also require an appointment letter to convey an offer of employment. There is no evidence of an appointment letter in relation to the temporary supervisory position filed by Ms Challen although it is clear that the contract came into effect and was performed by both parties. This is not the case with respect to the alleged permanent position at level OO2/3. There was no appointment letter conveying an offer of such a position. Further, such an appointment was not put into effect through the computer system operated by Queensland Health. Ms Challen's pay slips continued to record the fact that she was a casual employee, as did the series of Employee Movements forms signed by Ms Challen in relation to the temporary supervisory position. Notwithstanding Ms Brown's evidence that she had seen an Employee Movements form altering the status of Ms Challen's employment from casual to permanent, Ms Brown confirmed that Ms Challen was a casual employee in two emails on 20 and 27 November 2006. Although there is evidence of Mr Bambry failing to follow proper procedures when employing staff, it does not follow that this is sufficient to establish the existence of a contract between Ms Challen and Queensland Health for a permanent part-time position. At all relevant times, Ms Challen was a casual employee. However, in the circumstances of this case, it is perfectly understandable that Ms Challen could reasonably have believed that she was a permanent employee. 5. Was Ms Challen dismissed and if so, was the dismissal unfair? It is strongly arguable that Ms Challen has been dismissed from her casual employment with Queensland Health. I am also of the view that regardless of whether or not Ms Challen was dismissed, or whether or not the casual nature of Ms Challen's employment means that she is excluded from bringing an application for reinstatement, the manner in which Ms Challen was treated was unfair. I accept that Ms Challen's temporary contract as OO3 Supervisor could have been brought to an end at any time, and that to bring this contract to an end would not constitute a dismissal. However, it was reasonable in the circumstances for Ms Challen to have an expectation that this would not occur without some valid operational reason, such as the return of the person whose position she was filling; the need to give some other employee an opportunity to work at a higher level; a decision that the position was no longer required; or genuine issues with her work performance in that role. In the present case, there is no evidence of any such reason for the cessation of the temporary contract. Mr Bambry gave evidence about his reasons for deciding not to renew Ms Challen's temporary contract as a Supervisor which sought to bring into question Ms Challen's work performance. That evidence was unconvincing. Mr Bambry said that Café Nescafe was experiencing a decrease in revenue during the period that Ms Challen was Supervisor but conceded under cross-examination that he may have been mistaken in the figures provided by him in his sworn affidavit to support this allegation and that there were days when the takings in Café Nescafe were higher than he had indicated in his evidence. Mr Bambry was also unable to provide any documentation to support his contention that the figures for the Café are currently over $3,000 per day. Mr Bambry's evidence that staffing issues in Café Nescafe had been resolved was contradicted by witnesses for Ms Challen including Ms Mickelle Corbin, Ms Jessica Packham and Ms Natasha Bennett, all of whom gave evidence of staff shortages which were not addressed, particularly gaps in rosters caused by absent staff which were not filled. On balance, I prefer the evidence of these witnesses to that of Mr Bambry. An investigation conducted by the LKA Group into grievance allegations made by Ms Challen also found that her complaints regarding staff shortages were substantiated. Mr Bambry also gave evidence about steps taken to assist Ms Challen with her supervisory duties such as introducing disposable cutlery; reducing the menu; removing food preparation; ceasing table service and providing additional staff. This evidence was contradicted by the evidence of Ms Corbin, Ms Packham and Ms Bennett, all of whom said that the disposable cutlery and the menu reductions were not implemented until after Ms Challen left, and that there were always staff shortages particularly due to absenteeism. Ms Challen conceded that there was some change with regard to food preparation while she was supervising Café Nescafe but maintained that the other changes had not been put into effect prior to her leaving. If there were issues, they were not raised with Ms Challen in a fair or reasonable manner. I do not accept that there were issues with Ms Challen as a Supervisor which were substantial enough to warrant her contract not being extended. Mr Bambry gave evidence of discussions he had held with other Managers about Ms Challen's performance and of a review conducted by another Supervisor, Ms Crabbe. None of those Managers or Ms Crabbe gave evidence. Further, Mr Bambry conceded under cross-examination that none of the performance issues -- 8 of 11 -- 9 he identified in his evidence were raised with Ms Challen. Mr Bambry also wrote an article in a newsletter entitled "Retail Rap" stating that Ms Challen had personally driven changes in the Café, and that it was a better place because of her initiative. It is also the case that at or around the time the decision was taken not to extend Ms Challen's contract as OO3 Supervisor, she made a number of complaints to Mr Bambry, both verbal and written, about staffing levels in Café Nescafe and lack of support from Managers. Mr Bambry met with Ms Challen to discuss her complaints on 28 September 2006. On 4 October 2006 Ms Challen put her complaints into writing. Ms Challen said that Ms Maria Wallace, Acting Manager Food Services, told her that Mr Bambry was angry about receiving the letter and that there would be consequences. Ms Wallace was issued with an attendance notice by Ms Challen but did not attend on the basis that she was not paid conduct money. Ms Brown, who gave evidence in support of Ms Challen, said that she was present during a discussion between Ms Challen and Ms Wallace where Ms Wallace said that Ms Challen should not have gone over her head to Mr Bambry. According to Ms Brown, Ms Wallace went on to say that Mr Bambry did not like letters of complaint and that Ms Challen would suffer the consequences. Also in evidence was the transcript of an interview with Mr Fraser (who gave evidence for Queensland Health in these proceedings) conducted during the investigation of Ms Challen's grievances against Ms Wallace and Mr Bambry. In that interview, Mr Fraser is recorded as having stated that Mr Bambry was annoyed with Ms Challen for speaking about her issues to Ms Brown and at what he believed was Ms Brown's involvement in assisting Ms Challen to write the letter of complaint. Mr Fraser also said in that interview that Mr Bambry had said that he had issues with the way that Ms Challen was running Café Nescafe, but did not elaborate other than to indicate his annoyance with the fact that he had been holding discussions with Ms Challen and she had put something in writing. Ms Corbin said that she was the Supervisor of Café Nescafe during that period and said that her name was not on the roster. Ms Corbin also said that when she asked why this was the case, she did not receive a response. Ms Brown said that Mr Bambry told the Allocations team that the OO3 Supervisor position was not to be included on the Café Nescafe roster, because they did not want Ms Challen to know that there was a Supervisor in Café Nescafe at that time, and because of Ms Challen's "court case". According to Ms Brown, the name of the OO3 Supervisor for Café Nescafe appeared on the Food Court roster. Mr Bambry was unable to satisfactorily explain why the name of the Supervisor, of the Café for the period from February 2008 onwards was not included in the roster, saying that he did not know why the rosters were attached to his witness statement. I prefer the evidence of Ms Corbin and Ms Brown on this point and I am of the view that it is more probable than not that there was an attempt to create the appearance that there was no longer a Supervisor in Café Nescafe. Ms Challen went on a period of pre-arranged leave from 27 November 2006 until 5 February 2007. Ms Challen gave evidence of having discussed and agreed this period of leave with various Supervisors and arranging it so it coincided with a close down at Café Nescafe. Ms Challen completed a leave form for this period, notwithstanding evidence from Queensland Health witnesses that there was no requirement for her to do so as she was a casual employee. Ms Challen was also paid for part of the period, as a result of accruing leave during the series of temporary contracts under which she worked as a Supervisor. While the disappearance of the Supervisor position from Café Nescafe roster might coincide with the re-opening of the Café after a closedown, it also coincides with the date that Ms Challen returned from leave and resumed her questioning about the status of her employment with Queensland Health. According to the evidence of witnesses for Queensland Health, Ms Challen's substantive contract of employment was as a casual employee "on call" at level OO2, at all relevant times. Witnesses for Queensland Health also said that when Ms Challen's temporary contract as a Supervisor was not extended, she simply reverted to this position and was required to ring and advise of availability for work. This is at odds with the weight of the evidence which establishes that while Ms Challen may have been technically termed a "call in" or "on call" casual, she was rostered on a regular basis to perform work and was never treated as being "on call". The letter offering Ms Challen casual employment makes no mention of Ms Challen being "on call". Ms Challen's evidence that she was on a roster for the entire period of her employment was not contested. Under cross-examination, Mr Fraser agreed that the shifts worked by Ms Challen from 19 February 2006 to 28 May 2006 were regular shifts. Further, Mr Fraser agreed that while Ms Challen was working for Queensland Health in 2006, there was a practice of placing casual employees on rosters. Ms Challen said that upon her return from overseas on or around 20 January 2007, she telephoned Ms Hone to ask what was happening with respect to her returning to work. Ms Hone informed Ms Challen that there was no position for her and that the Café had been restructured so that no supervisor was required. There are file notes outlining conversations between Ms Hone and Ms Challen on 1 February 2007 where Ms Hone confirmed that Ms Challen would be returning as a casual on-call. There is nothing in the notes of either conversation to indicate that Ms Challen was told that she was required to advise by telephone or otherwise of her availability (Exhibit R3 Appendices 19 and 20). Ms Hone said in her evidence, that she could not comment on why, when Ms Challen returned from leave, she was considered to be an on call casual, rather than being placed on a roster. -- 9 of 11 -- 10 On 28 February 2007 Dr Graves, the Acting Clinical Chief Executive Officer wrote to Ms Challen and stated that: "You are still a casual employee and will be provided with shifts when required.". (Exhibit A2). On 12 March 2007 Dr Graves again corresponded with Ms Challen to advise of the outcome of her grievance, and also advised that Ms Challen's current status was that of a casual employee of Food and Retail Services, and that she would need to advise the Allocations Co-ordinator, Mr Fraser, of her availability. Ms Challen said that she telephoned Allocations on several occasions and spoke to Ms Brown and Mr Watson who informed her that there was no work available for her. Most recently, Ms Challen telephoned Allocations in January 2008 and was told by Ms Bates that there was no work available for her. Ms Challen said that she had not been called for work at the date of the current proceedings, and had made several requests for work. Ms Brown said that she had been instructed by Mr Bambry that if Ms Challen rang to seek work, Ms Challen was to be told that she is still a casual on-call, but there is no work available. Ms Brown could not remember exactly when this instruction was given but said that it was while Ms Challen was on holidays. Ms Brown also said that Ms Challen had rung for shifts when she returned from her holiday and that she had noticed that Ms Challen's name and telephone number did not appear on the daily call-in list. Because of the instruction from Mr Bambry, Ms Brown did not ask why Ms Challen's name did not appear on the daily call-in list. Ms Brown also said that it is hard to believe that there is no work available for Ms Challen as she sees on a daily basis what shifts need to be filled, and which casuals are called into work. Mr Bambry and Mr Fraser gave evidence about offers of casual shifts made to Ms Challen, but there is no evidence of any such offers prior to 23 May 2007. These offers were made after a dispute notified by Ms Challen was dealt with by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, and were for limited periods. In the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that Ms Challen declined this work. Mr Bambry said that he had never issued an instruction to the effect that Ms Challen was to be told that there was no work available for her. The only instruction issued by Mr Bambry had been that if Ms Challen telephoned Allocations she was to be put through to the Manager, as Mr Bambry was concerned that Ms Challen had been secretly tape recording telephone conversations with Queensland Health staff. On this issue, I prefer the evidence of Ms Challen and Ms Brown. Mr Bambry, Mr Fraser and Mr Deller also gave evidence to the effect that there is very limited casual work currently available and that most employees in the retail area are permanent or on temporary contracts. There was considerable evidence from witnesses for Ms Challen about casual employees being required to sign temporary contracts, and in some cases not being given any choice about the matter. It was clear from Mr Fraser's evidence that putting casual employees on temporary contracts was seen as a means of resolving an issue where casual employees were being regularly rostered, contrary to policies about circumstances in which casual employees are to be utilised. I cannot see how placing casual employees on temporary contracts is consistent with the policies relating to the use of such contracts, in particular IRM 1.2 which sets out the circumstances in which such contracts can be utilised (Exibit R2 Appendix ORF4). However, I am of the view that but for the quite unjustified termination of Ms Challen's casual employment, she would have been in the same position as other casual employees who were offered temporary contracts and were thus provided with ongoing employment. Further, there was a suggestion that the use of temporary contracts to facilitate the regular rostering of casual employees was to be replaced by the mechanism of offering permanent employment to casual employees in early 2007. There was no evidence about whether this has occurred, but if it has occurred, I can see no reason why Ms Challen would not have at least had the opportunity of applying for such a position. When all of these circumstances are considered, it is more probable than not that the following occurred. Ms Challen was a casual employee who had been rostered to work regular hours. There had not been any issue raised with Ms Challen in respect to her conduct, capacity or work performance. There were some commitments made to Ms Challen about a permanent part-time position, which did not come to fruition. Ms Challen was offered and accepted a higher level supervisory position on the basis of a series of fixed term contracts, and her underlying contract of employment as a casual employee remained in place. Ms Challen was not aware that her underlying contract of employment was as a casual employee, and believed (on reasonable grounds) that she was a permanent employee. While working in the supervisory position, Ms Challen raised legitimate issues about staffing levels with various Managers, and put her concerns in writing to the most senior Manager in her area of operation, Mr Bambry. Mr Bambry took umbrage at the fact that Ms Challen had made a complaint in writing, and effectively engineered a situation whereby either Ms Challen's underlying contract of employment as a regularly rostered casual employee was brought to an end, or where the contract remained in effect but Ms Challen was not offered any work. In doing this, Mr Bambry took advantage of Ms Challen's status as a casual employee. It is likely that Mr Ryan Deller also participated given the improbability of some of his evidence. In particular, Mr Deller said that it was possible that he said the words: "Just sack her, get rid of her" but if he did so, this was not in reference to Ms Challen. Mr Deller's evidence on this point was entirely unconvincing. Ms Hone and Mr Fraser were clearly not part of Mr Bambry's -- 10 of 11 -- 11 activities with respect to Ms Challen and played no role in the unfair treatment of Ms Challen. Any role played by Ms Hone and Mr Fraser was based on what they were told by Mr Bambry. There is nothing to suggest that Ms Challen was anything other than a good employee, at least while she was working at the level of OO2, and but for the actions of Mr Bambry, Ms Challen would in all probability have had ongoing casual employment with regularly rostered hours. Ms Challen may also have had further temporary engagements and the opportunity to apply for permanent positions. I do not intend to make a finding as to whether or not Ms Challen was dismissed. It was contended by Counsel for Queensland Health that Ms Challen continues to be an employee of Queensland Health. If that is the case, then there is no reasonable explanation for why she has not been given work, other than she made a complaint and lodged a grievance about a number of issues, many of which were substantiated in these proceedings and in a previous investigation. Ms Challen may still have other remedies in relation to her treatment. Ms Challen contends in her application that she was dismissed on 27 November 2006. If that is the case, then Ms Challen was a short term casual employee within the meaning of s. 71(8) of the Act, and as such is excluded from bringing an application for reinstatement by s. 72(1)(c). It was not pleaded in the application that Ms Challen's dismissal was for an invalid reason under s. 73(2) of the Act. Notwithstanding the unfairness with which Ms Challen has been treated, an application for reinstatement is not a remedy which Ms Challen can pursue. The application for reinstatement in TD/2007/44 is dismissed. I order accordingly. I.C ASBURY, Commissioner. Hearing Details: 2008 27, 28 February 19, 20, 25 March Appearances Ms Cindy Challen Applicant, on her own behalf. Ms V. Donaghy instructed by Ms C Lyndon of Minter Ellison for the respondent. Released: 3 July 2008 Government Printer, Queensland The State of Queensland 2008. -- 11 of 11 --