Tadeo v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 177
Item
-
Title
-
Tadeo v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 177
-
Date
-
May 24, 2022
-
Rights Considered
-
Other Legislation: Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) sch 1 ss 295, 296, 297, 298, 306, 309, 311, 328, 359 and 541
-
Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 272, 284, 287, 288, 292, 295, 562B and 562C
-
Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld)
-
Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) ss 137, 187, 194
-
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, arts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, 18, 23
-
Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, arts 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 20
-
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) ss 17, 18, 19, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 47, 48, 49
-
Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (Qld) s 37.
-
Other Legislation
-
Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) sch 1 ss 295, 296, 297, 298, 306, 309, 311, 328, 359 and 541
-
Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 272, 284, 287, 288, 292, 295, 562B and 562C
-
Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld)
-
Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) ss 137, 187, 194
-
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, arts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, 18, 23
-
Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, arts 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 20
-
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) ss 17, 18, 19, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 47, 48, 49
-
Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (Qld) s 37.
-
Summary
-
The appellant was a technical officer at Redlynch State College whose employment was suspended without pay due to her failure to provide evidence of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in accordance with the Department of Education Employment Direction 1/21. She submitted that her human rights had been breached, namely under ss 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The respondent submitted that in making their decision they had given consideration to the appellant’s human rights, ultimately concluding to suspend her employment given the high level of risk to the health and wellbeing of students, families, department workers, and other stakeholders. The Tribunal agreed that the respondent had given sufficient consideration to the appellant’s human rights, and as such their decision was not contrary to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
