Dahm v State of Queensland

Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld)

• [1] Ms Holly Dahm (the appellant) is employed with the Queensland Treasury ('Treasury') as a Principal Human Resources Consultant (classification level AO7).

• [2] On 8 October 2025 Ms Dahm filed a Public Sector Appeal in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission'). The appeal purports to be in relation to a 'disciplinary decision'. The purported 'disciplinary decision' is attached to the Notice of Appeal and is correspondence from Treasury dated 16 September 2025 which invites Ms Dahm to show cause why a disciplinary finding should not be made against her in respect of certain alleged misconduct.

• [3] It is trite to note that the correspondence Ms Dahm has characterised as a decision is not a decision of any type and certainly not a decision appealable under the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('the PS Act').

• [4] Upon allocation of the file to me I noted the jurisdictional issue and listed the matter for mention on 21 October 2025 with the intent of raising this issue with the parties. A listing notice was issued on 15 October 2025.

• [5] Later on 15 October 2025, my chambers received the following email correspondence from Ms Dahm:

Thank you for confirming the listing scheduled for 21 October 2025. I note that I remain medically unfit for work, as certified under a medical certificate dated 22 September 2025, confirming continuing incapacity since 24 March 2025 with review not due until late December 2025 or early January 2026.

Accordingly, I am unable to participate in any hearing or mention at this stage and respectfully request the matter be deferred pending the next medical review.

Please note that all correspondence relating to this matter engages Commonwealth PID jurisdiction (PID-2025-800051 / AU62087IX, vested 2 June 2025) and should therefore be handled with due regard to those obligations.

I request written confirmation of the deferral and that no procedural steps be taken until medical clearance is received.

• [6] The email correspondence of 15 October 2025 attached medical certification confirming Ms Dahm was not fit to return to work. The medical certification was dated 23 June 2025 but considering the other details of Ms Dahm's medical condition that were included, I was prepared to accept her assertion that she was unfit.

• [7] In keeping with Ms Dahm's specific request that the matter be deferred, I vacated the mention listed on 21 October 2025. I then emailed the parties through my chambers on 17 October 2025, noting Ms Dahm's medical condition and relevantly saying:

Please be advised that this matter will be placed into abeyance until Ms Dahm advises the Commission she is fit to proceed.

• [8] Thereafter, a consistent stream of emails from Ms Dahm ensued. I do not intend to descend into the details of those emails other than to observe that they are replete with very disjointed references to various laws and legalese. They make little to no sense. Additionally, the list of addressees often extends over the length of the page and variously includes many, if not all, Members of the State and Commonwealth Parliament, and Justices of the Supreme Court. The content and attachments of the emails appear to predominantly relate to third parties and wholly unrelated legal matters in which Ms Dahm appears to be engaged.

• [9] On 5 November 2025, Ms Dahm attempted to file an appeal in the Industrial Court of Queensland in relation to what she alleges was my decision to place her matter into abeyance. This was a concerning development because it was Ms Dahm who had asked me to do this. In any event, placing the mater in abeyance in accordance with Ms Dahm's request to defer the matter was not a decision and therefore not able to be appealed. I note the Industrial Registry did not accept the appeal for filing.

• [10] As a consequence of continued email activity and the subsequent attempt to file further proceedings in the form of the appeal, I determined to list the matter for mention on 13 November 2025 to revisit the question of Ms Dahm's capacity to engage with her own proceedings before the Commission.

• [11] Ms Dahm was invited to attend the mention on 13 November 2025 by telephone.

• [12] Despite numerous attempts by both telephone and email correspondence, Ms Dahm was unable to be contacted by my chambers both at the commencement time for the mention and for approximately 10 to 15 minutes thereafter.

• [13] In those circumstances, on the grounds of Ms Dahm's failure to comply with my direction, I determined to exercise my discretion pursuant to rule 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) to dismiss the proceedings.[1]

• [14] I note for completeness that, had Ms Dahm attended the mention, I would have taken the opportunity to put her on notice of my intention to consider exercising the discretion available to me pursuant to section 562A of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) to not deal with her appeal.

• [15] In my view, there is no 'decision' to review and therefore no jurisdiction for the Commission to deal with the matters that arise from the correspondence she received from Treasury as a Public Sector Appeal. In all likelihood, the matter would have been dismissed on those grounds, albeit, not until I had heard from Ms Dahm as to whether she had an arguable case.

• [16] Following the mention on 13 November 2025, Ms Dahm made the following posts to her publicly viewable LinkedIn profile:

Figure 1: Ms Dahm posts a screenshot of two missed calls from the Commission on 13 November 2025 at 9:59 am for the mention due to start at 10:00 am. The calls were received 'now', demonstrating Ms Dahm determined not to answer the phone in real time.

Figure 2: Ms Dahm posts a screenshot of the email correspondence she received from my chambers at 10:12 am on 13 November 2025. The email notes the Commission's difficulty in contacting Ms Dahm for the mention listed at 10:00 am that day.

• [17] It is evident by the posts Ms Dahm has made to LinkedIn that she considers she can unilaterally decide that the Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with her matter and thereafter refuse to comply with directions. The LinkedIn posts demonstrate that Ms Dahm deliberately evaded the various attempts made by the Commission to contact her for the mention on 13 November 2025.

• [18] This non-compliance with a direction of the Commission only serves to reinforce the basis for the exercise of the discretion to dismiss Ms Dahm's appeal in that it seems that it was entirely deliberate.

• [19] In the circumstances I make the following Order:

Pursuant to r 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), matter number PSA/2025/205 is dismissed

[1] Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) r 45(2)(a),(3)(a).