Worker demands the use of 'pseudonym' and 'non-publication' of her case
The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) recently dealt with a case involving a worker who contended that the disciplinary findings against her were unfair and unreasonable.
The case of the worker started after the Professional Standards Unit (PSU) commenced an investigation into two allegations of inappropriate workplace conduct by the worker.
Appeal for ‘fair treatment decision’
At the time of investigation, the worker was employed by the Department of Children, Youth Justice, and Multicultural Affairs as a Youth Worker in two justice centres in Queensland.
In a letter on 23 August, the worker was asked to show cause with respect to the following allegations about her conduct and behavior including: a) touching her colleague on the arm b) referring to her colleague as “bub” c) touching her colleague on the buttock.
Consequently, the worker responded to the show cause notice, denying the allegations. Yet, the Department issued a decision letter on 16 November 2022 substantiating the allegations against the worker.
It also informed the worker that it was considering imposing disciplinary actions of transferring the worker to another youth worker role with up to $5,000 in actual relocation expenses.
On 22 February 2023, the worker sought an order that prohibits the Commission from publishing the decision on the Supreme Court Library website.
The worker further sought an order, in the alternative, that prohibits the Commission from publishing her name and the names of Departmental staff mentioned in the appeal submissions through the use of pseudonyms.
With regard to this appeal, the worker argued that private and personal matters regarding her were references throughout the investigation and discipline process and said that she did not openly share details of this nature.
The worker also contended that the outcome letter by the Department lacked supporting evidence to substantiate the allegations against her and that the decision to suspend her has been devastating and significantly affected her mental health.
Commission’s decision
After examining the details of the case, the Commission ultimately decided that the worker failed to establish that the decision was unfair and unreasonable.
It noted that all three grounds put forward by the worker (lack of supporting evidence, the undue weight placed upon circumstantial evidence, and lack of impartiality,) were not enough to consider the disciplinary finding as not fair and not reasonable.
The QIRC also dismissed the worker’s application for an order to prohibit the publication of the decision and her de-identification in the case.
The worker, according to the Commission, was “not a class of person whose identity should be suppressed” as she, after all, chose to exercise her right to appeal a decision before the Commission.
