Persson v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Persson v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 397
PARTIES:	Persson, Verena (Applicant) v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (Respondent)
CASE NO:	GP/2022/4
PROCEEDING:	Application in existing proceedings
DELIVERED ON:	14 October 2022
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	Hartigan IC On the papers
ORDER:	*Pursuant to s 541(b)(ii) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016* (Qld), the proceedings GP/2022/4 is dismissed in its entirety.**
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – GENERAL PROTECTIONS APPLICATION RELATING TO DISMISSAL – where Respondent made an application seeking summary dismissal of the substantive matter – where the parties consent to the application – whether further proceeding is necessary or desirable in the public interest – consideration of relevant factors – proceedings GP/2022/4 is dismissed in its entirety
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 456 and s 541 State of Queensland v Lockhart [2014] ICQ 006 Campbell v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) [2019] ICQ 18 (29 November 2019).

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

Queensland Health ('the Department') applies to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission') for orders seeking that Ms Verena Persson's application to deal with a general protection dispute be summarily dismissed[1] pursuant to s 541(b)(ii) or in the alternative, s 456(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act').
[1] Filed 9 June 2022.
Ms Persson first filed an industrial dispute[2] in the Commission on 1 March 2022 ('the dispute'). The dispute relates to Ms Persson's dissatisfaction with the requirements to receive a COVID-19 vaccination, and the subsequent disciplinary process due to her non-compliance with the requirements. On 2 March 2022, Ms Persson was terminated from her employment with the Department.
[2] D/2022/30.
On 23 March 2022, Ms Persson commenced another proceedings[3] in the Commission alleging that the termination of her employment was an act of adverse action by the Department ('the adverse action proceedings').
[3] GP/2022/4.
The Department raises the following grounds for striking out or dismissing Ms Persson's adverse action proceedings, as follows:
a)an order from the Commission, pursuant to section 456(1) of the Industrial Relations Act (Qld) (IR Act), striking out the General Protections claim in its entirety as it is being dealt with by the Commission in another proceeding; or
b)alternatively, an order from the Commission pursuant to section 541(b)(ii) of the IR Act, striking out or dismissing the General Protections claim in its entirety on the basis that further proceedings by the Commission are not necessary or desirable in the public interest.
On 6 September 2022, directions orders were issued by the Commission requiring the parties to file written submissions. By email correspondence dated 11 September 2022, the Applicant advised the Industrial Registry that "I have decided to cease the continued proceedings… and therefore I consent to the Respondent's application..."
The issue that I have to determine in hearing this application is whether I should dismiss the adverse action proceedings on the basis that further proceedings are not necessary or desirable in the public interest, or alternatively, that the matter is being dealt with by the Commission in another proceeding. As noted above, the Applicant does not object to the application.
Having regard to the written submissions filed by the Respondent on 9 June 2022 and the Applicant's correspondence of 11 September 2022 advising that she does not wish to proceed with the proceedings and that she consents to the application, I consider, pursuant to s 541 of the IR Act, that the purpose of the IR Act and, in turn, the public interest,[4] are best served by dismissing the Applicant's general protections claim, as further proceedings are not necessary or desirable.
[4]Campbell v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2019] ICQ 18 (29 November 2019) at [24]-[26], [28]-[29].

Orders

Accordingly, I make the following order:
Pursuant to s 541(b)(ii) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the proceedings GP/2022/4 is dismissed in its entirety.

The case of Persson v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) involved the Applicant, Persson, who had filed a general protections application regarding his dismissal. The Respondent, Queensland Health, sought summary dismissal of the substantive matter. Both parties consented to the application for summary dismissal. The primary issue before the court was whether the proceedings should be dismissed and if doing so would be necessary or desirable in the public interest. The court considered several factors, including the nature of the case, the consent of the parties, and the potential for a just and efficient resolution of the dispute.

The court meticulously evaluated the submissions and the evidence presented. Given that both parties had agreed to the summary dismissal, the court found it appropriate to consider the matter closed. The court recognised that the consent of the parties and the absence of any public interest that would necessitate further proceedings warranted a dismissal of the substantive matter. The court was satisfied that the resolution reached by the parties was fair and just, and that proceeding with the substantive matter would not serve any useful purpose.

The court concluded that the proceedings GP/2022/4 should be dismissed in their entirety. This decision was made pursuant to section 541(b)(ii) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld). The dismissal effectively ended the legal dispute between the Applicant and the Respondent, as both parties had reached a mutual agreement to resolve the matter without further litigation. The court's decision was grounded in the principles of fairness and efficiency in the resolution of workplace disputes.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established