Chemali v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) [2024] QIRC 267

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Chemali v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) [2024] QIRC 267 PARTIES: Chemali, George (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) (Respondent) CASE NO.: PSA/2024/6 PROCEEDING: Public Sector Appeal – Conversion Decision DELIVERED ON: 18 November 2024 MEMBER: HEARD AT: Power IC On the papers ORDER: In accordance with s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act, the decision appealed against is confirmed CATCHWORDS: PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – Public Service Appeal – where the appellant is substantively employed by the respondent – where the appellant acted at a higher classification level – where the appellant's request for permanent employment was rejected – where the respondent relies on its genuine operational requirements – whether the decision is fair and reasonable – where the decision is fair and reasonable. LEGISLATION AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS: Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 562B, s 562C Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld), s 120, s 129, s131, -- 1 of 15 -- 2 s 222 Senior Officer – Employment Conditions – Directive 10/23, cl 8, cl 14 CASES: Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10 Goodall v State of Qld & Anor [2018] QSC 319 Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] QIRC 203 Reasons for Decision Introduction [1] Mr George Chemali ('the Appellant') is substantively employed by the State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) ('the Respondent') as an AO8 Manager (Business Development) with Marketing and Communications. [2] The Appellant has been engaged to act in a higher classification position as the temporary Senior Office (SO) position of Project Director within the Mobility as a Service ('MaaS') project unit ('the position') for more than 5 years. [3] On 4 December 2023, the Appellant requested via email to be employed in the position on a permanent basis in accordance with s 222 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('the PS Act') and cl 14 of the Directive 10/23 – Senior Officer – Employment Conditions ('the Directive'). [4] On 20 December 2023, the Appellant received an email from Ms Catherine Spellacy, Principal Advisor (Human Resources), Department of Transport and Main Roads ('the decision maker'), advising that the Appellant would not be employed in the position on a permanent basis due to the genuine operational requirements of the Department ('the decision'). [5] By appeal notice filed on 9 January 2024, the Appellant appealed against the decision pursuant to s 131(1)(a) of the PS Act. Appeal principles [6] The appeal must be decided by reviewing the decision appealed against.1 Because the 1 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 562B(2) ('IR Act'). -- 2 of 15 -- 3 word 'review' has no settled meaning, it must take its meaning from the context in which it appears.2 An appeal under ch 11 pt 6 div 4 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act') is not by way of rehearing,3 but involves a review of the decision arrived at and the decision making process associated therewith. [7] The stated purpose of such an appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.4 The issue for determination is whether the decision to deny conversion of the Appellant's employment to a higher classification level was fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances. What decisions can the Industrial Commissioner make? [8] In deciding this appeal, s 562C of the IR Act provides that the Industrial Commissioner 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 provisions of the PS Act and the Directive [9] Pursuant to s 129(e) of the PS Act, a 'conversion decision' means a decision: …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.5 [10] Section 120 of the PS Act relevantly provides: 120 Employee may request employment at 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 2 Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10. 3 Goodall v State of Qld & Anor [2018] QSC 319, 5 as to the former, equivalent provisions in s 201 of the PS Act. 4 IR Act s 562B(3). 5 Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 129(e) ('PS Act'). -- 3 of 15 -- 4 (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— (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 -- 4 of 15 -- 5 a directive.6 [11] The Directive relevantly provides that: 8. Review of a public service employee for permanent employment at the higher classification level 8.6 When deciding the request, the chief executive must consider: a. whether the employee is suitable for employment to the senior officer role on a permanent basis b. the genuine operational requirements of the public service entity. Reasons for Appeal [12] The Appellant outlined the following reasons for appeal – I am writing to formally appeal the decision made by the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) not to support my request for permanent employment in the role I am currently performing and have been for the past five+ years. I received feedback on 20 December 2023 noting that the TMR delegate has determined that, at this time, the genuine operational requirements of the entity do not support my transition to permanent employment, citing reasons related to the now approved three-year commitment for the current program. … Having followed the relevant internal processes and faced rejection, I am reaching out to seek your assistance in navigating through the appeal process. I believe that the reasons provided for denying my request are not reflective of the depth of my contributions over the past five years and the ongoing commitment to the organisation. … Submissions [13] The Commission issued a Directions Order calling for submissions from both parties following receipt of the appeal notice. The submissions are summarised below. Appellant's submissions [14] The Appellant's submissions are summarised as follows – a) The Appellant's substantive position is as an AO8 Manager (Business Development). Since 8 December 2018, the Appellant has been continuously performing higher duties in the temporary position of SO(3) Project Director and acting Executive Director within the MaaS and Mobility Office program. b) The Appellant has been in this position since 2018 with no performance 6 PS Act s 120. -- 5 of 15 -- 6 concerns put to him, documented and/or remaining unresolved. c) The period from 2018 to 2021 was the inception of the MaaS program phase one. The Department, under direct guidance of the Director General, has considered the implications of concepts like MaaS on the transport system since 2017. This included the establishment of a program team in 2018 that focused directly on MaaS and new mobility initiatives. The Appellant's role on the project team began December 8, 2018, as Project Director. Early work up to 2021 focused on establishing the strategic and economic business case and proofs-of-concepts for why multi-modal services that combine private and public modes of transport enable more sustainable transport use. d) The period from 2021 to 2024 was the second phase of the MaaS program that enabled and delivered the approved economic business case. The Appellant submits that the Department's Executive leadership team including the Director General, approved the 2021-2024 MaaS program. This second phase allowed the delivery and creation of the MaaS and mobility team in Queensland and awarded adequate funding and resourcing to perform the work over the next three years. The position of Project Director was advertised externally on SmartJobs which the Appellant applied for and was successful. e) The Appellant submits that during the 2021-2024 MaaS program, the Department's efforts in this area gained national and international recognition among stakeholders including academics, government, and industry. f) To continue the Department's efforts in this space, the Department's Executive Leadership Team proposed to move the program from under the leadership of the Director General's office and continue the program beyond 2024 within the Translink Division. g) Before and during the transition process there were multiple discussions regarding the request for review of acting at a higher classification level for both the Appellant and another team member. This was also noted in the 'MaaS Transition to Translink Division – Feedback and proposed response to feedback' document. On a number of occasions, the Appellant was advised that the roles would be "automatically" made permanent upon transition into Translink. Immediately prior to moving, the Appellant and the team member were advised they would have to apply to the Translink Human Resources Team via formal request to the Deputy Director General. h) The Appellant trusted this advice and upon having followed the relevant internal Translink HR processes, the Appellant faced rejection and was not successful with the review to gain a higher classification level. -- 6 of 15 -- 7 i) The Department provided reasons that the Appellant believes are not congruent with Department's roadmap, vision, and externally facing documents. j) In the decision, the decision maker states operational requirements preclude permanent employment at higher classification level as the engagement to perform work for the MaaS and Mobility Office project is temporary, as the project is currently scheduled to close on 30 June 2024. k) The Appellant argues that the program of work has been operational since 2017. The program has been extended twice and recently for a further third time – for another three years from the June 2024 proposed end date to Phase Two. At the end of 2027, the MaaS program of work will have been operational for over 10 years. l) The Appellant argues that while an independent program review is currently underway, this does not change the MaaS requirement within Queensland and the Department. The Appellant believes that the Department's commitment has been made clear in several internal and externally facing documents, projects, and announcements: i. MaaS is listed as a TMR priority in the South East Queensland regional transport plans and aligns to the 'Transport Coordination Plan 2017–2027' ('the TCP'). The TCP is a 10-year strategic document. ii. Translink has also committed to MaaS in the 'Creating better connections' document. iii. Translink has recently released a tender for a new journey planner smart phone application. The requirements for this journey planner included a provision for multi-modal journeys incorporating MaaS in line with the Department's roadmap and strategic documents. The Appellant has a seat on the procurement decision panel as a MaaS content expert. iv. On 6 November 2023, Ms Sally Stannard, Acting Director General, expressed her commitment via her department wide weekly email mentioning that the MaaS team would integrate into Translink "in pursuit of creating better connections for Queensland". m) To advance the initiatives initiated in the realm of MaaS in Queensland, the Department's Finance and Procurement Committee ('the Finance Committee'), a governance body within the Executive Leadership Team, has formally endorsed the program of work for an additional three-year -- 7 of 15 -- 8 commitment beyond June 2024. This extension aligns with the Director General's responsibilities and underscores the ongoing commitment to sustain and advance the MaaS program in Queensland. n) The Appellant submits that it is crucial to note that the decision and the accompanying rationale highlighting that the MaaS program "is a project with a project with a specified end date" and "the project is currently scheduled to close on 30 June 2024" do not align with the Department's stated vision and the sentiments expressed internally and publicly. Respondent's submissions [15] The Respondent's submissions are summarised as follows – a) The Respondent confirms that, as provided in the decision letter dated 20 December 2023, the Appellant was considered suitable for the role as there are no current performance concerns regarding the Appellant's engagement in the Project Director position. b) In the document the Appellant references, 'MaaS Transition to Translink Division – Feedback and proposed response to feedback', it was noted that there were concerns raised regarding the potential impact on conversion requests that MaaS's move to Translink may have. The MaaS Program Management Office provided the following response: Regarding potential temporary to permanent arrangements this will be subject to the normal HR requirements. The staff members in question should make a formal request as per the HR guidelines. c) Furthermore, the Respondent submits that there was no indication given by a person authorised to make that decision that there would be an 'automatic' conversion upon transition to the Translink Division. The request submitted on 4 December 2023 by the Appellant was reviewed without prejudice or predetermination in accordance with the relevant industrial instruments. d) The Respondent submits that while the Appellant's submissions have provided some documentation endorsing the Department's support of the concept of MaaS in the future, this documentation does not support the establishment or retention of any permanent roles, functions, or structure. The Department's commitment to MaaS is indicative of a shift towards the integration of the function and activities of the project team into a business-as-usual context, which would necessitate the dissolution of the project team. The exact nature and structure of the team responsible for MaaS is currently under review, and its ongoing role has not yet been determined. -- 8 of 15 -- 9 e) It is the nature of the team created to execute a specific project that there is a natural swelling and attrition of staffing levels during the life cycle of the project. On 2 July 2018, at the beginning of the MaaS project, 5 full time equivalent (FTE) roles were allocated to the project team, and this had increased to 15.42 FTEs in the 2022/2023 financial year. In November 2023, when the MaaS project transitioned into Translink, it had 4 FTEs remaining. Through workplace and project change processes, the project currently engages only 2 FTEs, as the initial body of work which required higher staffing levels has been completed and these roles were not required in the later phases of the project. f) The Respondent confirms that Translink has put out to tender a new smartphone application which may include the provision for multi-modal functionality. While the Appellant is currently on the procurement decision panel as a subject matter expert, the project is currently in contract negotiation with vendors, and once the process is finalised, there will be no requirement for ongoing procurement expertise. g) The Respondent submits that the length of a project does not in any way determine its status as 'temporary' or 'permanent'. h) The Respondent contends that the Finance and Procurement Committee did not endorse the MaaS program beyond June 2024, and the funding for the program is set to conclude on 30 June 2024. To continue the MaaS Program, funding will be subject to Translink's budgetary process and will be considered in line with other competing priorities. The Department remains committed to implementing the recommendations of the current review that is underway, and an additional funding request may be submitted pending the outcome of the review, which is anticipated by 30 June 2024. i) The Respondent confirms that there is currently a review underway which will determine the future requirements for implementation of the MaaS within Queensland. This review is being conducted externally by an independent third-party provider. In the case of Lynch v State of Queensland (Department of Education) ('Lynch'), it was accepted that: …there was a program review underway which involves workplace change and may result in an ongoing program with a different structure and needs. In those circumstances, I find that the Respondent had an authentic, genuine operational requirement for refusing the request. j) The Respondent submits that the Senior Officer role is a fixed term temporary role for a project with a known end date (30 June 2024), after which the functions of the project team will be integrated into business-as-usual -- 9 of 15 -- 10 activities, and as such, it is not viable for the role of Project Director to be maintained on a permanent basis. k) The Respondent submits the precedent set by the below cases: i. Burnside v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] ('Burnside') upheld the decision that it is not viable for the Appellant to be appointed permanently to the position in circumstances where the position is unlikely to exist leaving the employee as an Employee Requiring Placement. ii. Woods v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2021] ('Woods') asserted that where a project had a defined purpose and definitive end date, it was fair and reasonable to not permanently appoint an employee to a project position. l) Whilst the Respondent acknowledges that the absence of permanent funding does not preclude employment on a permanent basis (as seen in Lynch and Katae v State of Queensland & Anor [2018]), to appoint the Appellant to a permanent position in a project which is reaching its natural conclusion, and whose future funding request was not approved, would not be considering the genuine operational requirements of the Department. m) Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] ('Morison') provided the following benchmark for determining the genuine operational requirements of the Department: …'genuine operational requirements of the department', construed in context, would at least include whether or not there was an authentic need, having regard to the effective, efficient and appropriate management of the public resources of the department. n) The Respondent submits that the role that the Appellant is currently performing is highly specialised and would not easily transfer to equivalent Project Director roles, either in existing or future projects. o) The Respondent submits that the decision to not appoint the Appellant to a permanent position was made with respect to the genuine operational requirements of the Department. Appellant's submission in reply [16] The Appellant's submissions in reply are summarised as follows: a) The Appellant submits that while the Respondent notes that there was no automatic conversion to a permanent role upon transition to the Translink -- 10 of 15 -- 11 Division, the Appellant followed the guidance provided to make a formal request as per HR guidelines. During the Appellant's tenure as Project Director several meetings occurred among senior TMR executives, another team member, and the Appellant regarding the appointment. During these meetings explicit verbal commitments were frequently made, however, the responsibility to initiate the formal request was made the Appellant's and the other staff member's responsibility. This aspect is duly documented in the brief, which received approval from the Director General. The brief highlights the continuation of the Maas Team within Translink and specifically notes "that two staff may be eligible for temporary to permanent directive should positions become available". b) The Appellant submits that he understands that the documentation provided does not explicitly support the establishment or retention of permanent roles. However, the significant commitment made by the Department in twenty published documents including the abovementioned Director General brief suggests a persistent need for a dedicated role overseeing this function. Whilst the team was approved for 15.42 FTEs, at no point did the team ever exceed more than 7 FTEs. Three of these FTE's were transitioned to the Office of the Director General and four were transitioned into Translink as noted by the Respondent. The intention to move the team into Translink division was not only to continue MaaS but to embed it into Translink's business as usual, hence the need for an ongoing resource. c) The Appellant submits that while the duration of a project does not inherently define its status, it is important to consider the extended duration of the project. The Appellant refers to s 81 of the PS Act which relevantly provides: (4) Without limiting subsection (3)(a), employment of a person on a permanent basis may be viable or appropriate if a person is required to be employed for a purpose mentioned in subsection (3)(a) on a frequent or regular basis. (7) To remove any doubt, it is declared that this section applies in relation to a public sector employee's employment on a temporary basis for a fixed term if the employment is extended under this Act or another Act. d) The Appellant submits that the Respondent's assertion that funding for the MaaS program ends on June 30, 2024, overlooks the context that the Finance and Procurement Committee has instructed Translink to continue the program, necessitating the search for funds. Additionally, an email from a TMR executive dated 6 February 2024 also confirms funds have been made available, noting that "we are well placed to deliver on the planned program in FY24/25". Furthermore, the engagement of a third party to plan the program's continuation over the next three years contradicts the delegate's closure of the project on June 30, 2024. -- 11 of 15 -- 12 e) The Appellant submits that the reference to the Lynch case and the current independent review of the MaaS program highlights the dynamic nature of the program and the potential for ongoing requirements beyond the current structure. f) The Appellant submits that despite recognising the Burnside and Morison cases as precedents, each case must be evaluated on its own merits. The MaaS program has been operational since 2018 and is progressing into its next phase with advice from external third parties. The nature of the Respondent's precedent cases does not align with the current internal operations in progress. g) The Appellant submits that the Respondent's stance on this matter should not impact the Appellant's application. The Respondent's argument is future-oriented, whereas the Appellant's application focuses on the present requirements of the MaaS program, a role the Appellant has been dedicated to since 2018. It is premature for the Respondent to conclude at this stage that the knowledge and skills acquired during the Appellant's tenure with the Department are not transferable to other departments. h) The Appellant submits that it is premature to conclude that appointing the Appellant to a permanent position would not meet the genuine operational requirements of the Department. As noted in this response, the Appellant is aware that the Department may not have full visibility of activities that are currently underway, however, the third party's scope of work is not to re-prosecute the MaaS business case, but to provide a direction forward on the next phase of the approved work. The Department would not engage third-party providers to commence these activities if the project was not continuing as a day-to-day function within Translink. The Respondent's view of this project 'reaching its natural conclusion' does not align with the current activities that are underway that have been initiated by the Department. Consideration [17] The appeal against the decision to not appoint the Appellant to the higher classification position on a permanent basis requires a determination as to whether the decision was fair and reasonable. [18] It is not in issue that the Appellant was eligible to request an appointment to the higher classification position and that he met the suitability requirements for the position. The Respondent confirms that there are no current performance concerns regarding the Appellant's engagement in the higher duties position. -- 12 of 15 -- 13 [19] The basis upon which the decision maker declined to convert the Appellant's employment to permanent was due to the genuine operational requirements of the Department. [20] In Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women), Deputy President Merrell considered the phrase 'genuine operational requirements' and stated the following: 'genuine operational requirements of the department', construed in context, would at least include 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.'7 [21] The Appellant submits that during the process where the MaaS project transitioned from the Director-General's office to Translink, multiple discussions regarding the request for review of acting at the higher classification level occurred. The Appellant submits that he was advised on a number of occasions that the roles would be 'automatically' made permanent upon transition into Translink, however, immediately prior to this occurring the Appellant and his colleague were advised that they would have to apply to the Translink HR team via a request to the Deputy Director General. [22] The Appellant submits that verbal commitments were frequently made as documented in the brief approved by the Director General. The Appellant outlines that the brief states "that two staff may be eligible for temporary to permanent directive should positions become available". A statement that staff 'may' be eligible for conversion 'should positions become available' is not an explicit commitment to convert the Appellant to the higher classification permanently. The review and decision were appropriately conducted in accordance with the Directive. [23] The Appellant acknowledges that an independent program review is currently underway but submits that this does not change the MaaS project requirement within the Department. The Appellant submits that the Finance and Procurement Committee has formally endorsed the program of work for an additional commitment beyond June 2024, contending that this extension underscores the ongoing commitment to the MaaS program in Queensland. The Respondent refutes this submission, stating that funding for the Finance and Procurement Committee did not endorse the MaaS program beyond June 2024. The Appellant acknowledges in his submission that he understands that the documentation regarding the project does not explicitly support the establishment or retention of permanent roles. It was reasonable for the decision maker to determine that the independent program review undertaken to determine the future activities, scheduling and structure for the project was a genuine operational reason to not convert the Appellant to permanency at this stage. [24] The Appellant submits that he has a seat on the procurement decision panel for a new 7 Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] QIRC 203, 40. -- 13 of 15 -- 14 journey planner smart phone application as a MaaS content expert. I accept the Respondent's submission that current negotiations are underway with vendors and once this process is finalised there will no requirement for ongoing procurement expertise. [25] I note the Respondent's submission that the Department's commitment to MaaS is indicative of a shift towards the integration of the function of the project team into a business-as-usual context, which would necessitate the dissolution of the project team. In these circumstances, it was open to the decision maker to not convert the Appellant to the higher classification position when that position would no longer be required at the completion of the project. [26] The submissions indicate that the project will not be ongoing in nature and the reduction in employees attached to the project reflects its temporary nature. As submitted by the Respondent, the project commenced with 5 FTE employees and then expanded to either 15.42 FTE employees (or 7 FTE employees as submitted by the Appellant) before reducing to 4 FTE employees when the project transitioned to Translink. The MaaS project now appears to only have 2 FTE employees. [27] The Appellant submits that it is premature for the Respondent to conclude at this stage that the knowledge and skills acquired during the Appellant's tenure with the Department are not transferable to other departments. As outlined in Morrison, the Respondent must have regard to the effective, efficient, and appropriate management of the public resources of the department. To convert the Appellant to a higher classification position that is not required beyond the project on the basis that the Appellant's skills and knowledge may be transferable to other departments is not consistent with the efficient management of the department's resources. The decision involves a review of whether permanent conversion to the position is appropriate given the operational requirements of the Department, not whether the Appellant may be transferred to other departments if the position is no longer required upon completion of the project. [28] I note that the Appellant applied for the temporary higher duties position as part of an open merit process and was successful in obtaining the temporary role. He now has considerable experience in the role and if the organisational requirements of the Department were to change such that the position was to be ongoing on a permanent basis one would expect that the Appellant would be converted to the higher duties position. It was however reasonable for the decision maker to determine that the current genuine organisational requirements of the Department prevent conversion of the Appellant to the higher duties position. [29] Having considered the material before the Commission, I am satisfied that the decision that appointment on a permanent basis was not viable or appropriate in accordance with s 81(3)(a) was fair and reasonable. I accept that the higher classification position exists for the purpose of working within the MaaS project and this project has an end date. The decision maker had an authentic and genuine operational requirement for refusing the -- 14 of 15 -- 15 Appellant's request. In these circumstances it was open to the decision maker to determine that genuine organisational requirements existed to prevent conversion of the Appellant to the higher classification position. [30] For the above reasons, I consider the decision to be fair and reasonable. Order [31] I make the following order: 1. In accordance with s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act, the decision appealed against is confirmed. -- 15 of 15 --