31 When the Director General refused to alter his requirement that Ms Burrows relocate, his advice of 7 November 2007 was that she would be given meaningful work to perform at Parramatta. Mr Walker's evidence was that was his intention, although he had not finalised what those duties would be. It cannot sensibly be inferred from all of the evidence, that the duties Ms Burrows would have been allocated, would not have been work of a suitable kind, given her skills as a sound reporter and the April 2007 HealthQuest report.
32 On Mr Walker's evidence, the Department was then in the throes of a major relocation. Mr Walker had responsibility for over 300 staff, apart from Ms Burrows. He assured her that she would be at Parramatta under his supervision, or that of another manager, should he be absent. Ms Burrows also had a concern as to the identity of such a manager, because she claimed she had outstanding, unresolved grievances against other former supervisors. Nevertheless, given the refusal to relocate, a situation where Mr Walker was absent and Ms Burrows had to be supervised by someone else, never arose. Nor was there any complaint advanced as to the supervision arrangements in place on level 8 under Mr Walker, including, for example, during Mr Walker's absence on 8 and 9 November. That there was any proper basis for Ms Burrows' expressed concerns, was simply not established. Nor could they provide a basis upon which Ms Burrows was entitled to refuse the direction she had been given.
33 Mr Walker had only a short opportunity to turn his mind to the duties which Ms Burrows might be given at Parramatta. He had made no final decision about those duties. Ms Burrows' repeated advice to Mr Walker, however, was that while she had not made up her mind, it was unlikely that she would relocate to Parramatta. As she had foreshadowed, she ultimately refused to comply with Mr Glanfield's direction. It is hardly surprising, in those circumstances, that Mr Walker, who was dealing with other issues raised by the relocation, did not complete his consideration of what duties Ms Burrows should be allocated, in the event that she decided that she would relocate. It cannot be inferred from the evidence that duties Mr Walker would have allocated Ms Burrows, had she relocated, would have been duties the respondent was not entitled to require of Ms Burrows, or even that they would have involved a departure from what HealthQuest had advised.
34 Ms Burrows also complained about the workstations at Parramatta. In cross examination, Mr Walker confirmed that they were not adjustable in the same way as the workstations at the Goodsell Building. They had to be adjusted for each employee, a process which took about three weeks to complete. Ms Burrows took the view that had she attended Parramatta, she could not have been productively employed. Given the HealthQuest advice to the Department, it could not be sensibly inferred that the necessary adjustment would not have been made to the workstation Ms Burrows was allocated. Ms Burrows insisted that she had an obligation to ensure that she did not put her health in jeopardy. So did the respondent. Such obligations could not, however, put Ms Burrows in a position where she was simply entitled to refuse the direction she had been given, because of a view that necessary adjustments to a workstation would not be made.
35 Ms Burrows also complained about many other aspects of the decisions made by the Director General, including the time at which the decision was made and how it was communicated to her; how she was dealt with by comparison to other employees affected by the relocation and the refusal to review the decision as she had requested, notwithstanding the difficulties it posed for her personal circumstances. On her approach, in fairness the Director General should have taken other courses available to him.
36 These proceedings do not, however, involve a review, or an appeal from the Director General's decisions, or how they were implemented. The fairness of those decisions and how they were implemented, also do not arise for consideration. Rather, Ms Burrows has sought particular declaratory relief, as a part of her challenge to the respondent's right to require her to perform work, other than that of a sound reporter located in the Sydney CBD. That challenge must fail.
37 The legislative scheme under which Ms Burrows was employed, envisages in s 46 of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, that allegations of misconduct might be raised in relation to an officer such as Ms Burrows; that should they arise, such allegations should be the subject of a formal investigation; and that there should be procedural guidelines established, as to how such an investigation should be conducted and determined. The Guidelines, so established, also accord with the provisions of s 4E, which permit conditions of employment of staff to be fixed 'in so far as they are not fixed by or under any other law'. It follows that the Guidelines permitted the Director General to require Ms Burrows to perform work at a different location, as he did, consistently with the legislative scheme under which they were established.
38 What duties Ms Burrows was allocated from time to time in her employment, plainly depended upon the fact of her employment as a sound reporter. Her duties were also affected by her recovery from the injuries which she had sustained. Upon being directed to relocate to Parramatta, Ms Burrows was assured that she would be given meaningful duties there. What those duties would have been, cannot be known, given the circumstances in which Ms Burrows refused to comply with the direction to relocate. On the evidence, however, it cannot be inferred that duties which Mr Walker would have given Ms Burrows, had she complied with the direction, would have been inconsistent, either with the basis of her employment, or the state of her health. Despite Ms Burrows complaints, that she had no reason to accept any assurances as to the work which she would be provided, because the respondent had failed on earlier occasions to provide her with meaningful work, resulting in an injury and victimisation and harassment, it was not established that the Director General's November 2007 direction conflicted with anything which HealthQuest had 'determined', or that it was not one which the Director Generally was lawfully entitled to give.
39 Ms Burrows also argued that she was concerned that Mr Glanfield's advice that she would be given meaningful work at Parramatta, left open the possibility that she would be victimised and harassed and that the work she was to be given, would have resulted in a work related injury. Mr Walker's evidence, that he had assured Ms Burrows that at Parramatta, she would remain under his supervision, or in his absence that of another manager, and that he would provide her with meaningful work to do there, was not disputed. Undoubtedly Ms Burrows held strong views that she has been treated inappropriately, in a myriad of ways, by many other employees of the Department, throughout the course of her employment. The basis of these complaints was not much explored in these proceedings. Some of them, at least, are the subject of other proceedings brought by Ms Burrows, in which she seeks other declaratory relief. Those proceedings are presently part heard.
40 Nevertheless, on the evidence in these proceedings, it must be concluded that the requirement to relocate could not of itself be regarded as constituting victimisation or harassment. Nor did the evidence suggest that the complaints Ms Burrows advanced, related to her supervision by Mr Walker, or to the work she had been required to perform, while under his supervision. While Ms Burrows' complaints were wide ranging, some were particularly directed to events after November 2006, which Ms Burrows claimed had contravened applicable award provisions and had resulted in her being forced to work in an unsafe manner, that had resulted in further pain and injury. She also claimed that the respondent had provided false information to HealthQuest and that it had ignored the recommendations of WorkCover Certificates issued by her treating doctors. The evidence did not, however, seek to establish any foundation for those complaints. In the end result, despite all of Ms Burrows' stated claims, fears and concerns, the evidence did not establish a basis upon which it could be concluded that Ms Burrows was lawfully entitled to refuse to comply with the Director General's direction.
41 On his evidence in cross examination, Mr Walker had himself not had much notice that Ms Burrows was to move to Parramatta, although that was what he was expecting, given the circumstances in which she had come to be under his supervision, working on level 8 at the Goodsell Building. On her evidence, Ms Burrows had a different expectation, she assumed that she would remain in the CBD when Mr Walker and his staff relocated. Presumably, that expectation rested on Ms Burrow's belief as to her contractual entitlement to remain in a sound reporter's position in the CBD.
42 Mr Walker received advice of the Director General's decision, essentially at the same time as Ms Burrows, at a time when he had been in his position and supervising Ms Burrows for only some three weeks and a major relocation of the Department was imminent. On his evidence, Mr Walker was anxious to address Ms Burrows' expressed concerns, which he discussed with her on a number of occasions, when she repeatedly advised him that it was unlikely that she would relocate. As it transpired, Mr Walker had little practical opportunity to determine the particular duties he would allocate Ms Burrows at Parramatta, but he sought to reassure Ms Burrows that he would give her meaningful work, if she complied with the Director General's direction. There was no proper reason for that evidence to be doubted.
43 Ms Burrows certainly had no right to refuse to relocate, as directed, until she was advised what her particular duties would be, but on her evidence, this was but one of the many concerns, which led her to refuse to comply with the Director General's direction.
44 Ms Burrows also relied upon the award which applied to her employment, the Crown Employees (NSW Attorney General's Department - Reporting Services Branch) Sound Reporters Award 2007. It envisaged in clause 7.2 that: