Ferri v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) [2022] QIRC 239

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Ferri v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) [2022] QIRC 239 PARTIES: Ferri, Jye (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) (Respondent) CASE NO: PSA/2022/424 PROCEEDING: Public Service Appeal – fair treatment appeal DELIVERED ON: 22 June 2022 MEMBER: HEARD AT: Pidgeon IC On the papers ORDER: The decision appealed against is confirmed CATCHWORDS: PUBLIC SERVICE – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – public service appeal – where the appellant made a conflict of interest declaration - where the appellant was asked to resubmit declaration - where the appellant was directed not to engage in certain aspects of secondary employment until new declaration is approved - where the appellant appeals the interim decision - whether the interim decision was fair and reasonable LEGISLATION: Industrial Relations Act 2016, ss 562, 562B and 562C -- 1 of 14 -- 2 Public Service Act 2008, s 194 Reasons for Decision Introduction [1] Mr Jye Ferri (the Appellant) commenced casual employment with the State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) (QCS/the Respondent) as a Custodial Correctional Officer (CCO) at the Brisbane Correctional Centre (BCC) on 30 December 2019. [2] Mr Ferri is an admitted lawyer and is employed with Sibley Lawyers in a casual capacity. [3] Mr Ferri declared his secondary employment with Sibley Lawyers on 9 September 2020 and noted that the firm represents essential service personnel including Correctional Officers. This declaration was approved on 10 September 2020 by Chief Superintendent Bernie Kruhse1 subject to the condition that: QCS may withdraw approval of any other employment where it is in the interests of QCS to do so after consulting with myself, and that such advice will be provided in writing. [4] On 10 March 2022 Superintendent Peter Stacey wrote to Mr Ferri (the interim measure).2 [Ethical Standards Group (ESG)] had become aware that, while employed in your role as a CCO, you also currently provide legal representation to other QCS employees, including your colleagues at BCC, in workplace investigations being conducted by ESG. [5] Superintendent Stacey determined that …until such time as your new other employment and/or conflict of interest declaration is submitted and a determination has been made that a conflict of interest does not exist, you will not be approved to appear and provide legal representation to QCS employees during ESG investigations. I also take this opportunity to bring to your attention the provisions of s 186(1)(b) of the Public Service Act 2008 which provides that 'If a public service employee, other than a chief executive, has an interest that conflicts or may conflict with the discharge of the employee's duties, the employee – must not take action or further action relating to a matter that is, or may be, affected by the conflict unless authorised by the chief executive'. I suggest that any current or proposed representation by you of QCS employees involved in disciplinary processes, be held in abeyance pending determination of your new declaration. 1 Respondent's submissions filed 27 April 2022, attachment 1. 2 Respondent's submissions filed 27 April 2022, attachment 2. -- 2 of 14 -- 3 Should you wish to provide support to QCS employees during interview processes, in the role of a support person only, prior approval of the relevant ESG investigator will still be required to ensure a conflict of interest does not exist with the matter under investigation. This is a normal ESG process. … [6] Mr Ferri filed a new Declaration of Other Employment on 15 March 2022. [7] Mr Ferri's appeal notice sets out the following reasons he believes that the interim measure issued by Superintendent Stacey was unfair and unreasonable: • No QCS Policy requires me to submit an annual COI Declaration. • My COI Declaration was approved well before I engaged in the COI activity. • The circumstances of my Declaration have not changed since initial approval. • Since initial approval, my Declaration has been reviewed multiple times without issue. • I am not aware of any workplace investigation, management action or disciplinary process concerning me. • Superintendent (Supt) Stacey rescinded approval of my COI without consultation to understand my circumstances. • Supt Stacey indicates the entire declaration is unapproved however, only restricts me from representing QCS employees. It is unclear why this condition be imposed relative to other areas of practice. • Supt Stacey has requested I submit a new Declaration, as circumstances mirror the original Declaration, there is little benefit in providing a new application. Merely further bureaucracy. • It is unclear how a Supt can overturn a Chief Superintendent's decision. • A request of reasoning from Supt Stacey on 15 March 2022, was not replied to. • A follow-up request of reasoning on 24 March 2022 resulted in Supt Stacey confirming his decision without any explanation of how it was arrived at. • On 28 March 2022, I request Assistant Commissioner (AC) Tom Humphreys review and correct Supt Stacey's decision, to no reply. • My compliance with Supt Stacey's unfair and unreasonable decision has resulted in me suffering continue loss of income, this has been made known to QCS since 24 March which has failed to encourage consultation. [8] Mr Ferri says that he seeks that the interim measure be reversed, reinstating approval of his original COI. [9] I have reviewed the interim measure being appealed. That interim measure does not rescind the previous decision of Chief Superintendent Kruhse. The decision asks that Mr Ferri submit a new conflict of interest declaration for consideration and specifically prevents him from undertaking for work clients who are employees at QCS until such time as the new declaration has been considered. [10] Therefore, I consider that the appeal before me requires me to determine whether it was fair and reasonable for Supt Stacey to issue the interim measure requesting an updated COI declaration be submitted by Mr Ferri and that pending the outcome of that declaration, he not undertake work involving QCS employees in ESG investigations. -- 3 of 14 -- 4 [11] However, there is an initial issue of jurisdiction to deal with as the appeal has been filed eight days out of time. -- 4 of 14 -- 5 Is the Appellant entitled to appeal? [12] Section 194 of the Public Service Act 2008 (The PS Act) lists various categories of decisions against which an appeal may be made. Section 194(1)(eb) provides that an appeal may be made against "a decision a public service employee believes is unfair and unreasonable (a fair treatment decision)". [13] The appeal notice was filed with the Industrial Registry on 8 April 2022. The decision appealed against is the interim measure decision of Superintendent/Director Peter Stacey dated 10 March 2022. This means that the appeal was filed eight days outside of the 21 day period for lodging an appeal. [14] I note Mr Ferri's submission that he has been engaged with his employer since the date of Supt Stacey's decision. Mr Ferri says that he followed Part 9 – Prevention and Settlement of Disputes of the Queensland Corrective Services – Correctional Employees' Certified Agreement 2016 (the Agreement). Mr Ferri says that in the first instance, he would utilise the QCS individual employee grievance resolution system to finalise the matter. He said that he is unaware of the existence of such a policy as required by cl 7.1 of Directive 11/20: Individual Employee Grievances (the Directive). Mr Ferri says that in accordance with cl 9.3(a)(i) of the Directive, he commenced an external review through a public service appeal before the Commission. [15] Mr Ferri says that he escalated the matter through leadership and communicated with Superintendent Peter Stacey, Assistant Commissioner Tom Humphreys and Deputy Commissioner James Koulouris. It was when he decided he had exhausted internal avenues to resolve the matter that Mr Ferri decided to lodge his appeal. [16] The Respondent says that Part 9 of the Agreement states that when there is disputation in the workplace, employees are required to follow the dispute resolution process within the timeframes prescribed under Part 9 of the Agreement and that if a resolution cannot be reached, the employee can file an appeal with the QIRC within the statutory timeframe. [17] The Respondent says that the time limitation for filing this Appeal lapsed on 31 March 2022 and that by that time, Mr Ferri had not initiated Stage 2 of the dispute resolution process. The Respondent says that Mr Ferri did not refer the matter to Deputy Commissioner Koulouris until 3 April 2022, three days after the appeal period had lapsed. [18] The Respondent says that Mr Ferri is a solicitor who practices in public sector employment law and that he ought to have been aware of the timeframes that apply to the dispute resolution process under the Agreement and the statutory timeframe that applies to appeals in the Commission. -- 5 of 14 -- 6 [19] The Respondent further states that the appeal lacks substance. The Respondent says that there is 'nothing about the interim measure that would lead the Commission to consider that the Appellant would have good prospects of success should the extension of time be granted. [20] The Respondent says that while Mr Ferri says that the delay in filing the appeal has not prejudiced QCS in any way, there is judicial support for the proposition that once the legislature has selected a limitation period, to allow the commencement of an action outside the period is prima facie prejudicial to the other party who would otherwise have the benefit of the limitation.3 [21] The Respondent submits that the circumstances of the case do not warrant the exception being invoked to extend the statutory limitation period. [22] Mr Ferri submits that granting an extension of time would be fair and equitable in the circumstances, encouraging others in similar positions to pursue the internal dispute resolution prior to seeking an appeal before the Commission. [23] The appeal notice provides the Appellant an opportunity to apply for an extension of time to lodge the appeal notice and to give reasons in support. Mr Ferri reasons that he had followed the dispute resolution procedure contained in the Agreement which led him to file his appeal with the Commission. [24] As I understand it, Mr Ferri has now complied with the request to submit a fresh conflict of interest declaration form (COI Declaration) and that the outcome of that process is on hold until this appeal is considered by the Commission. [25] The parties have both set out the guiding principles in considering an application to extend time.4 I have considered the submissions of both parties with regard to the jurisdictional matter raised by the late filing of the appeal. The email correspondence shows actions taken by Mr Ferri to raise his matter with various decision makers and there is some evidence that grievance or dispute processes have been engaged. I also note that a decision regarding the new COI Declaration is on hold pending a decision on this appeal. In those circumstances noted here and where both parties have made submissions on the substantive matter alongside their submissions regarding jurisdiction, I have decided to extend time to hear the appeal. [26] For the reasons which follow, I have determined that the letter issued by Supt Stacey, subject of this appeal, was fair and reasonable. 3 Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541. 4 Grant v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2020] QIRC 228. -- 6 of 14 -- 7 Appeal Principles [27] Section 562B(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (IR Act) provides that "the purpose of the appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable". [28] 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. [29] A public service appeal is not an opportunity for a fresh hearing, but a review of the decision arrived at by the decision maker. To determine the appeal, I will consider whether the interim measure decision conveyed of 10 March 2022 was fair and reasonable. [30] 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. Submissions of Parties [31] The parties have structured their submissions using some headings taken from Mr Ferri's appeal points. I will consider each area of the appeal in turn. Appeal ground 1: No QCS Policy requires Mr Ferri to submit an annual COI declaration [32] The Respondent says that COI Declarations are submitted online through the QCS online portal, which stipulates that Declarations should be reviewed every 12 months. The Respondent says that it is standard practice for declarations to be reviewed every 12 months and an email is sent nine months after Declaration is approved to serve as a reminder. [33] Mr Ferri says that while QCS appears to encourage the review of declarations every 12 months, this is not mandatory. Mr Ferri submits that so long as the information contained in the declaration remains true and relevant, the mere lapse of time is not sufficient to trigger a new declaration. Mr Ferri says that his original COI Declaration stated that he may assist with employment law services and that Sibley Lawyers represents essential service personnel including correctional officers. Mr Ferri says that based on that declaration, it was open to the decision maker to conclude that Sibley Lawyers clients would be QCS employees and that he would be involved with matters concerning QCS employees and that nothing new has occurred. -- 7 of 14 -- 8 [34] The Respondent says that the initial COI Declaration was approved subject to a condition that 'QCS may withdraw approval of any other employment where it is in the interests of QCS to do so after consulting with myself, and that such advice will be provided in writing'. This condition appears to indicate that at any time that there is a concern about the current COI Declaration, QCS will consider whether to withdraw the approval. It appears to me that the letter from Supt Stacey is a part of the process of considering whether the approval should be withdrawn and that at this state no 'such advice' has been provided in writing other than the interim action pending a determination regarding the new COI Declaration. [35] Mr Ferri says that the lack of consultation with him about the direction restraining his secondary employment leaves QCS unable to exercise its right to withdraw at this time and his original COI Declaration should be reactivated. It seems to me that Supt Stacey's correspondence set out the reason why QCS was seeking the updated COI Declaration and that the request for a new COI Declaration to be submitted as a result of those matters was a form of consultation with Mr Ferri. The final decision rests with the Chief Superintendent and to that extent, following consultation, the decision is the Chief Superintendent's, and not a matter for negotiation. If Mr Ferri is aggrieved by the decision on his new COI Declaration, he will be able to appeal that decision once he receives it. [36] The Respondent says that even if there was no such 12 month review practice, where circumstances change and a potential conflict is identified, the employee or the employer are required to resolve the conflict and not wait for the 12 month anniversary. [37] I find that the request for a new COI Declaration to be submitted was made as a result of concerns the Respondent formed having noted Mr Ferri's involvement in representing QCS employees in workplace investigations and disciplinary processes and not in reliance on a policy of undertaking 12 month reviews of COI Declarations. The existence or otherwise of a 12 month review cycle has no impact on the interim measure of 10 March 2022. Appeal grounds 2 and 3: Mr Ferri's COI Declaration was approved well before he engaged in the COI activity and the circumstances of his declaration have not changed since approval [38] In his initial COI Declaration, Mr Ferri disclosed that 'Sibley Lawyers offers Employment Law services which I may assist with. The firm does represent essential service personnel including Ambulance, Police and Correctional Officers'. The Respondent says that the only information it had about Mr Ferri's secondary employment was what he included in the COI Declaration and that he had described the work he was to perform with Sibley Lawyers as: -- 8 of 14 -- 9 Ordinary duties of a Junior Solicitor at a Criminal Law Firm. It is proposed I be engaged in a casual capacity. Tasks may include: - Drafting court documents; - Managing files; - Meeting with clients; - Making court appearances; - Assisting in the general operations of running a business. [39] The Respondent says that it may have been the case that Mr Ferri was not aware of any conflict of interest at the time he commenced his secondary employment with Sibley Lawyers and points out that the original COI Declaration did not expressly state that Mr Ferri would be representing employees of QCS in disciplinary processes. However, the Respondent says that after he commenced employment and realised that the nature of the work included representing QCS employees in disciplinary processes and attending interviews with QCS employees as part of workplace investigations, it was incumbent upon him to submit a further declaration and that Mr Ferri did not do this until after he received the interim measure. [40] The letter from Supt Stacey stated: Ethical Standards Group (ESG) had become aware that, while employed in your role as a CCO, you also currently provide legal representation to other QCS employees, including your colleagues at BCC, in workplace investigations being conducted by ESG. [41] Mr Ferri's argument, as mentioned above at [33], is that he had said that he would be working for Sibley Lawyers who represent correctional centre employees and therefore it was open to the decision maker to conclude that Mr Ferri would be involved in representing QCS employees in employment related matters such as disciplinary processes and ethical standards unit investigations. I note that Mr Ferri's list of duties declared in the COI Declaration does not include attending ESG investigation interviews with QCS employees or preparing their show cause responses, both issues raised by the QCS as being of concern. [42] The Respondent says that while it accepts that it was aware that there was a prospect that Mr Ferri's employment with Sibley Lawyers may involve Mr Ferri performing some work for QCS employees, the full extent and nature of the work was not known at the time of the original COI Declaration. The Respondent says that it is now evident that Mr Ferri does provide representation to employees of QCS in interviews as part of workplace investigations and disciplinary processes and that this includes drafting responses to show cause notices for employees. The Respondent says that it is aware of at least eight responses to show cause notices that Mr Ferri has authored in his employment with Sibley Lawyers. [43] The Respondent says that one of the QCS employees Mr Ferri has represented was an employee of BCC and that this was the correctional centre at which Mr Ferri was also -- 9 of 14 -- 10 employed at the time. The Respondent says that in that case, Mr Ferri prepared a response to a first show cause notice dated 14 September 2021 in which submissions were made seeking to discredit the evidence of two of Mr Ferri's fellow CCOs at BCC.5 [44] The Respondent attaches a spreadsheet evidencing what it says is a large number of emails sent to QCS on behalf of QCS employees by Mr Ferri and the attendance of Mr Ferri had a number of ESG interviews.6 In response, Mr Ferri says that he has sent 50 emails over 53 weeks in his capacity as a Junior Solicitor. He says that it is difficult to reconcile roughly one email a week to ESG as representing a 'large number'. I have considered these submissions and note that depending on the circumstances, the sending of far fewer emails than this could result in a concern regarding a potential conflict of interest. [45] The Respondent also notes that in the day-to-day performance of Mr Ferri's work as a CCO, he is privy to confidential and sensitive information that can be used by him in his employment with Sibley Lawyers when acting against QCS in employment matters. As a CCO, Mr Ferri has access to the QCS Integrated Offender Management System (IOMS) and other systems which hold confidential information about events, incidents, employees and prisoners which can be used by Mr Ferri for his client's benefit. Mr Ferri says that he has raised this matter in his original COI Declaration and that it has been previously identified and managed. Mr Ferri further says that there would be no benefit in his misuse of the QCS IT systems as briefs containing relevant information are provided by QCS to Sibley Lawyers. I note that this exchange of submissions is not particularly relevant to this current appeal in circumstances where at this stage there is no decision on the new COI Declaration relying on access to information systems as a reason to not approve the secondary employment. [46] The Respondent also says that a situation may arise where Mr Ferri could be influenced by a private interest when carrying out his public duty as a CCO. [47] It is clear that while Mr Ferri may be of the belief that the original circumstances of his COI Declaration have not changed, the Respondent is seeking to review the approval now that it is aware of the extent of the secondary employment and the relationship of that employment to the workplace. I do not think that it is unreasonable for the Respondent to seek to review the COI Declaration given the matters raised by the parties above from [38]-[42]. Appeal ground raised in reply submissions: Union delegates support of QCS employees [48] Mr Ferri's reply submissions state that it has been long established that QCS employees can hold dual roles. Mr Ferri makes reference to Together Queensland Industrial Union 5 Redacted version of this document is attachment 5 to Respondent's submissions filed 27 April 2022. 6 Respondent's submissions filed 27 April 2022, attachment 6. -- 10 of 14 -- 11 of Employees (TQ) and says that the delegates of that Union are also QCS employees and that the Agreement encourages union involvement. Mr Ferri points out that the union website states that members may receive the assistance of an Industrial Officer during investigations, administrative action, performance management, disciplinary action or WorkCover processes and that this may include representation in industrial tribunals and courts. Mr Ferri says that the union example provides a precedent of furthering private interests being successfully managed in the workplace. Mr Ferri also says that this was addressed in his original COI Declaration. [49] The Respondent says that TQ delegates have an obligation to manage any conflict of interest that may present in them performing both roles. The Respondent also points out that the work that Together Queensland delegates perform is ancillary to their work with QCS, is not paid secondary employment and is supported under the Agreement and the Correctional Employees Award – State 2015. [50] The submissions regarding TQ delegates and the nature of their role as union delegates is of no assistance to Mr Ferri in this matter which specifically relates to his secondary employment and the need to consider whether aspects of his secondary employment give rise to a conflict of interest with his employment as a CCO with QCS. Appeal grounds 4 and 5: Since initial approval, Mr Ferri's Declaration has been reviewed multiple times without issue and Mr Ferri is not aware of any workplace investigation, management action or disciplinary process concerning him. [51] There do not appear to have been any submissions of significance with regard to these matters from Mr Ferri's appeal notice. I would simply note that as discussed elsewhere, the Respondent has determined that the circumstances of Mr Ferri's original COI Declaration may have changed. If this is the case, decisions resulting from previous reviews are not necessarily indicative that there will never be 'issues' in the future. [52] There is no material before me to suggest that there needs to be a workplace investigation, management action or disciplinary process in progress prior to the Respondent seeking to review a COI Declaration. [53] I do not find that either of these appeal points serve to make the interim measure unfair or unreasonable. Appeal grounds 6 and 9: Supt Stacy rescinded approval of Mr Ferri's COI without consultation to understand Mr Ferri's circumstances. It is unclear how a Supt can overturn a Chief Superintendent's decision. [54] The Respondent denies that Supt Stacey's letter had the effect of rescinding the approval of the original COI Declaration and says that in no part of the letter is there a reference to the original COI Declaration being 'rescinded'. -- 11 of 14 -- 12 [55] I have read the letter sent by Supt Stacey on 10 March 2022. The letter does not rescind the previous COI approval. The letter makes it clear that the direction regarding legal representation of QCS employees is in place 'until such time as your new other employment and/or conflict of interest declaration is submitted and a determination has been made that a conflict of interest does not exist…'. It appears that this situation was reiterated to Mr Ferri on both 28 March 2022 and 7 April 2022 prior to the lodging of this appeal. [56] The Respondent submits that while Supt Stacey's interim measure did have the effect of temporarily curtailing Mr Ferri's secondary employment as it related to him appearing and providing legal representation to QCS employees during ESG investigations, he was able to continue performing other legal work for Sibley Lawyers as contemplated in the original COI Declaration. [57] The Respondent says that Mr Ferri was also informed on 28 March 2022 and 7 April 2022 that the delegated decision maker in relation to the new decision is Chief Superintendent Henderson. The Respondent says that Chief Superintendent Henderson's decision in relation to the new declaration was to have been issued on or about 8 April 2022 but that this appeal was filed prior to the decision being issued. [58] The original COI Declaration does not appear to have been rescinded or overturned and so these appeal grounds must fail. Appeal ground 7: Supt Stacey has indicated that the entire Declaration is unapproved, however only restricts Mr Ferri from representing QCS employees. It is unclear why this condition be imposed relative to other areas of practice. [59] The Respondent says that nowhere in the decision does Supt Stacey say that the entire original COI Declaration was unapproved. The Respondent says that that the interim measure only restricts Mr Ferri from representing QCS employees. It appears that this has been addressed in correspondence to Mr Ferri which is referred to elsewhere in this decision ([56]). [60] Once the Respondent had determined that there may be an issue with Mr Ferri's COI Declaration, it was reasonable to the Respondent to put in place a temporary measure requiring Mr Ferri to cease the activities that gave rise to the potential conflict. Appeal ground 8: Mr Ferri has been asked to submit a new COI Declaration and Mr Ferri thinks that there is little benefit in doing so as the circumstances mirror the original Declaration. [61] As I understand it, Mr Ferri attempted to update his current COI Declaration but the system required that he submit a new COI Declaration, which he did on 13 March 2022. -- 12 of 14 -- 13 Chief Superintendent Henderson was due to issue a decision on that matter on 8 April 2022 prior to the filing of this appeal. [62] The submissions above make it clear that the circumstances of Mr Ferri's secondary employment are now much better established than they perhaps were at the time of his original COI Declaration. While Mr Ferri feels the circumstances mirror the original COI Declaration, the Respondent clearly holds a different view. In these circumstances it is reasonable that he be asked to submit a new COI Declaration. If Mr Ferri believes the circumstances have not changed, it is a matter for him to determine what to write in his COI Declaration. This ground of appeal is of no assistance to Mr Ferri. Other submissions made by Mr Ferri regarding communication received after the interim measure was issued; lost income and that the decision appears targeted and without grounds [63] A number of other submissions were made by Mr Ferri in relation to communication he received after the issuing of the interim decision. I have read these submissions and considered them, but as the communication occurred after the interim measure was issued, they are of limited assistance to me in determining this appeal. [64] My role in this appeal is to consider whether it was fair and reasonable for the interim measure to be issued requiring that Mr Ferri cease representing QCS employees in his secondary employment capacity pending a fresh COI Declaration process. I am not conciliating or arbitrating a dispute regarding the actions that were taken after the interim measure was issued. [65] I note the submission Mr Ferri has made regarding lost income as a result of the interim measure. The Respondent says that it is regrettable that Mr Ferri has lost income as a result of the interim measure but stands by its decision to issue the interim measure. It seems that Mr Ferri made his own determination that he 'lacked approval to engage in any alternative employment'. The letter Supt Stacey sent to Mr Ferri made it quite clear that while he was awaiting the outcome of the new COI Declaration, his secondary employment could not involve representation of QCS employees. Mr Ferri appears to have continued to seek consultation or meetings about his understanding of the interim measure and it seems that on 28 March 2022, he received confirmation from Supt Stacey about the intention of the interim measure and that it related to the representation of QCS employees. While I understand that Mr Ferri was aggrieved by the interim measure (and sought to appeal it by way of this matter), there is nothing unclear about the instruction given to him. Mr Ferri has been able to continue working for Sibley Lawyers with regard to employment matters outside of QCS. [66] Mr Ferri has also submitted that Supt Stacey's decision appears targeted and without grounds. The Respondent says that this submission lacks insight when considering the matters it has raised about the nature of the work Mr Ferri is undertaking in his secondary -- 13 of 14 -- 14 employment. The Respondent says that his is particularly concerning given Mr Ferri's ethical obligation as a lawyer and the obligation he has as a public service employee to resolve conflicts of interest. [67] Mr Ferri says that Supt Stacey's email dated 10 March was carbon copied to Chief Superintendent Henderson, Mr Ferri's General Manager and Ms Amanda Chittleborough, an ESG investigator. Mr Ferri says that it was unnecessary for Ms Chittleborough to be carbon copied into the correspondence about the interim measure. He says that the interim measure contained confidential information and did not need to be circulated to Ms Chittleborough. Mr Ferri says that if Ms Chittleborough was included as a 'point of contact', he already had her email and that simply noting her email rather than carbon copying her would have ensured that the interim measure remained confidential. Mr Ferri says that he is disappointed with this breach of confidentiality. While I note Mr Ferri's dissatisfaction, I do not find that cc'ing the email to include the internal point of contact for the matter serves to make the interim measure unfair or unreasonable. Conclusion and Order [68] Mr Ferri requests that the Commission direct QCS to either reactivate the original COI Declaration or approve the pending COI Declaration, as they are of the same substance. Neither of these outcomes are available to Mr Ferri in this appeal. It is my role to determine whether it was fair and reasonable for Supt Stacey to issue to the interim measure. [69] For the foregoing reasons, I have determined that the interim measure was fair and reasonable. When the Respondent formed a concern that there may be a need to revisit Mr Ferri's COI Declaration on the basis of the nature of the secondary employment he was undertaking, as it pertained to QCS employment, it was reasonable to request that Mr Ferri submit a new COI Declaration and that pending a decision on that COI Declaration, he temporarily cease representing QCS employees in a professional capacity. [70] The interim measure decision of Supt Stacey is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. -- 14 of 14 --