Ginns v State of Queensland

Recruitment and Selection (Directive 07/23), cl 4, cl 5, cl 8, cl 9

Bayntun v State of Queensland (Department of Tourism, Innovation and Sport) [2022] QIRC 361

Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No 2) [2022] QIRC 16

Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018)

Green v State of Queensland (Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation) [2025] QIRC 151

Page v John Thompson and Lesley Dwyer, As Chief Executive Officer, West Moreton Hospital and Health Service [2014] QSC 252

Pope v Lawler [1996] FCA 1446

[1] Mr Matthew Ginns ('the Appellant') is currently employed as a full-time Firefighter (Senior Firefighter) by the Queensland Fire Department ('QFD') ('the Respondent').

[2] On 16 December 2024, a number of positions were advertised for Station Officer roles. This occurred through recruitment process 20443 which had a closing date of 17 January 2025.

[3] The Appellant submitted an application for the position of Station Officer, Sunshine Coast Division, Greater Brisbane Region, Queensland Fire and Rescue ('the role') on 15 January 2025.

[4] 31 applicants from this process were deemed suitable out of a total of 101 applications. Of the 31 meritorious applicants, 18 have been permanently appointed to Station Officer positions from recruitment process 20443.

[5] On 28 November 2025, the appointment of DL[1] to the role was published in the Queensland Government Gazette.

[6] That promotion decision is the subject of this appeal.

[7] On 19 December 2025, the Appellant filed a Form 89 - Appeal Notice, appealing the promotion decision of DL into the role.

[8] The issue for my determination was whether the promotion decision was fair and reasonable.

[9] Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and the material before me, the promotion decision appealed against was not fair and reasonable and the Appellant has established a deficiency in the selection process. I have set aside the promotion decision and returned the matter to the Respondent with directions.

[11] The appeal must be decided by way of reviewing the decision appealed against to consider whether it was fair and reasonable.[2] The appeal is not conducted by way of re-hearing but rather involves a review of the decision and the associated decision-making process.[3] The issue for my determination is whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.[4]

What decisions can the Industrial Commissioner make?

[12] Section 562C (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act') prescribes that the Commission may determine to either:

• set the decision aside and return the issue to the decision maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions permitted under a directive of the commission chief executive under the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('the PS Act') that the Commission considers appropriate; or

• set the decision aside and substitute another decision.

[13] Clause 18.2 of the Appeals (Directive 04/23) ('the Appeals Directive') provides that the Commission member may issue any direction they consider necessary, including:

1. a direction that, within one month, the chief executive is to revoke the appointment and publish a gazette notice that the appointment is revoked;

1. a direction that the chief executive either recommences the recruitment and selection process from the point of advertising the vacancy or continues with the process from a particular time or event as identified by the IRC member; or

1. a direction that a new selection committee is to be formed and a direction regarding the composition of the new selection committee, where a decision is made that a chief executive is to recommence the recruitment and selection process.

[14] Section 131(1)(e) of the 'PS Act' provides that a promotion decision is a type of decision against which an appeal may be made. Section 133(e) further provides a promotional appeal may be made by a public sector employee employed on a permanent basis, who is aggrieved by the decision, and is entitled to appeal under a Directive.

[15] Section 129 of the PS Act defines a promotion decision to mean a decision to promote a public sector employee employed on a permanent basis.

[16] Clause 10 of the Appeals Directive outlines the requirements for promotion appeals.

[17] The Appellant is a public sector employee employed on a permanent basis, who is aggrieved by the promotion decision. The Appellant applied for the role subject of the decision and requested post-selection feedback in accordance with the relevant provisions.

[18] Section 564(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act') relevantly provides:

appeal period, for an appeal against a decision to an industrial tribunal, means the period within 21 days after -

(c) if the decision is a promotion decision - the decision is publicly notified under the Public Sector Act 2022; or

[19] In the present case the promotion the subject of the appeal was published in the Queensland Government Gazette on 28 November 2025. The appeal was filed in the Industrial Registry on 19 December 2025, within the 21 days provided by s 564(3)(c) of the IR Act.

[20] I am satisfied that the Appellant is a person who may appeal the promotion decision and that he lodged his appeal within the relevant timeframe, following the public notification of the successful applicant.

[21] Section 562C(2) of the IR Act provides:

In deciding an appeal against a promotion decision, the commission may set the decision aside only if the commission finds that the recruitment or selection process was deficient, having regard to whether the process complied with the Public Sector Act 2022, a regulation or a directive made by the Public Sector Commissioner under that Act.

[22] Section 44 of the PS Act relevantly provides the following:

1. Principles underpinning recruitment and selection

(1) The purpose of this section is to ensure the recruitment and selection of a high‑performing, apolitical and representative public sector workforce.

(2) A person undertaking a recruitment and selection process in a public sector entity, including, for example, making a decision about employment of a public sector employee, must undertake the process in accordance with the principles mentioned in subsection (3).

(a) recruitment and selection processes must be directed to the selection of the eligible person best suited to the position; and

(b) recruitment and selection processes must be fair and transparent; and

(c) recruitment and selection processes must reflect the obligations under chapter 2 relating to equity, diversity, respect and inclusion.

[23] Section 45 of the PS Act also provides:

1. Employment on merit and for equity and diversity

(1) A person selected for employment in or to a public sector entity must be the eligible applicant best suited to the position.

(2) In deciding the eligible applicant best suited to a position, a person undertaking a recruitment and selection process in a public sector entity -

(a) must consider each eligible applicant's ability to perform the requirements of the position; and

(i) the way in which each eligible applicant carried out any previous employment; and

(ii) the potential of each eligible applicant to make a future contribution to the entity; and

(iii) the extent to which the proposed decision would contribute to fulfilment of the entity's obligations under chapter 2, including, for example, the objectives, strategies and targets stated in the entity's equity and diversity plan.

[24] The Appeals Directive and the Recruitment and Selection (Directive 07/23) ('the Recruitment Directive') are both relevant to this promotion appeal.

10.1 Section 131(1)(e) of the Act provides that a promotion decision may be appealed.

10.2 Section 129 of the Act provides for the definition of promotion decision.

10.3 Who may appeal a promotion decision under section 133 of the Act:

(a) a public sector employee employed on a permanent basis who is aggrieved by the decision and is entitled to appeal under a directive.

10.4 Further to clause 10.3, a public sector employee is only entitled to appeal a promotion decision:

(a) where the decision relates to a promotion of a permanent public sector employee that has been published in accordance with section 84(2) of the Act, and

(b) where the aggrieved employee submitted an application for the role that is the subject of the promotion decision, and

(c) if the aggrieved employee's application for the role that is the subject of the promotion decision, was received by the deadline for the receipt of applications, or in the case of continuous applicant pools, the application was received prior to the initial date that applications were distributed to the selection panel, and

(d) the aggrieved employee has sought post-selection feedback in accordance with the relevant provisions of the directive relating to recruitment and selection, and

(e) in the case of a promotion decision resulting from a limited advertising process conducted in accordance with the directive relating to recruitment and selection, the aggrieved employee must have been eligible to apply.

10.5 Decisions that cannot be appealed as a promotion decision under section 132 of the Act:

(a) a non-appealable appointment (refer to clause 17 for more information)

(b) a decision to promote a public sector executive, unless the decision is declared under a directive to be a decision against which an appeal may be made

(c) a decision to promote a person as a chief executive, a senior executive or a senior officer

(i) the person employed under the promotion decision had been redeployed within one year before the promotion, and

(ii) the promotion is to a classification level that is not higher than the classification level of the person employed under the promotion decision immediately before the redeployment.

[26] The Recruitment Directive relevantly provides:

1. Selecting the eligible applicant best suited to the position

9.8 To promote integrity and diversity in recruitment, selection panels must:

(a) consider and declare any actual, potential or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest between each panel member and the applicants, or, the absence of such conflicts of interest

(b) consider elements of conscious or unconscious bias that may impact the process, including mitigation strategies

(c) consider how the selection process can be accessible, inclusive and culturally safe (as relevant to each circumstance and organisational context)

(d) provide candidate care, including through timely and regular communication with applicants

(e) for senior executive vacancies, include one member from outside the ministerial portfolio.

Assessment of the person best suited to the position

9.10 When selecting the eligible applicant best suited to the position, a person undertaking a recruitment and selection process must:

(a) comply with any relevant direction given by the chief executive under clause 7.6

(b) conduct a holistic assessment of eligible applicants in the context of the role requirements and the factors provided for in section 45(2) of the Act

(c) clearly document why a person is assessed as being the eligible applicant best suited to the position, including a comparative assessment where there is more than one applicant in a process.

9.11 Assessment processes for advertised positions must:

(a) consider contemporary and best practice selection techniques relevant to the requirements of the position and the entity's operating context

(b) incorporate selection techniques that enable a sufficiently comprehensive and holistic assessment of each applicant within the context of being best suited to the position

(c) consider all the information before the selection panel, rather than rely or focus on one aspect of the process, such as interview performance

(d) incorporate referee checks and pre-employment checks as appropriate and required

(e) be consistent with the obligations set out in chapter 2 of the Act relating to equity, diversity, respect and inclusion.

[27] The relevant recruitment process for this role consisted of four stages including:

• Written application
• Panel interview
• Practical endorsement
• Station Officer Program course

[28] Depending on the current level of the applicant, being either a Station Officer, Leading Fire Fighter (LFF) or Senior Fire Fighter, the elements of the above process that need to be undertaken differ.

[29] Substantive Station Officers were not required to undertake the practical endorsement nor the Station Officer Program as they would have already completed these prior to their appointments in their current roles.

[30] The primary issue in this appeal relates to the third stage involving practical endorsement. At issue is whether LFFs (along with Station Officers) were exempted from having to undertake the practical endorsement.

[31] Senior Fire Fighters were required to undertake the Practical endorsement, and a pool of successful applicants would then move forward to undertake the Station Officer Program when a vacancy was available. An applicant was only able to be permanently appointed to a Station Officer position after they had completed the Station Officer Program.

[32] The Appellant included fulsome submissions attached to his Appeal Notice on 19 December 2025. Following a Directions Order issued by me, further submissions were also provided on 19 January 2026. I intend to summarise both below.

[33] The Appellant contends that he was more meritorious for the role on the basis that he was awarded a score of 4.756 out of 5 for the recruitment process while the successful applicant received a score of 3.9. Further the Appellant lists a number of qualifications he holds that the successful applicant does not.

[34] The Appellant submits that the successful applicant was not required to undertake a mandatory practical assessment for the recruitment process, however, was awarded the maximum score available for the purposes of recruitment process 20443.

[35] In relation to this, the Appellant acknowledges that substantive Station Officers are exempt from participating in the practical assessment however, the successful applicant was an LFF and the Appellant submits they should not have received the exemption.

[36] The Appellant contends that the recruitment process, including the internal recruitment policies of the Respondent are an unfair process which undermine merit-based selection processes. The Appellant further submits that had the Respondent followed the Recruitment Directive and subordinate policies, the outcome of the recruitment process would not have been the same.

[37] In contradiction with the Recruitment Directive, the Appellant submits that the selection panel have not taken a holistic approach nor selected the person best suited for the role. As a consequence, the selection panel have undermined the purposes of the Directive.

[38] The Respondent submits that the successful applicant was employed as an LFF prior to the appointment to Station Officer. It contends that the LFF rank was introduced in 2003 with only a few employees remaining on this rank.

[39] In relation to the successful applicant, the Respondent contends that DL was appointed to LFF in November 2018 after successfully completing the Officer Development Program (now known as the Station Officer Program).

[40] The Respondent cites clause 59 of the Queensland Fire and Emergency Services Certified Agreement 2022 ('the Agreement'):

"Leading Firefighter" is a classification available to Firefighters who possess the relevant Station Officer qualifications and are awaiting promotion to Station Officer.

[41] In response to the Appellant's contention that the recruitment process deviated from the required policies and procedures, the Respondent submits there have been several changes to Procedure PR3123 - Station Officer Recruitment: Selection Progress and Training Program ('PR3123') over the last four years and contends that it has been customary practice for LFFs to be exempt from the requirement to complete the Practical Endorsement stage of the recruitment process. They specifically refer to section 5 of PR3123 version as it was at 23 March 2022 to August 2024 which states:

All applicants are required to successfully complete a State Endorsement process to be eligible for placement on SO1 unless they are already a substantive FRS SO or LFF.

[42] While the current PR3123 does not explicitly state that LLFs are exempt form the Practical Endorsement, the Respondent contends that it has always been the intent that they be exempt given that they have already completed the Practical Endorsement and Station Officer Programs.

[43] The Respondent submits that regardless of where applicants are identified in terms of suitability, discretion can be used by the delegate to make an appointment from the list of suitable applicants. Specifically in relation to the appointment of DL, the Respondent contends that they hold Station Officer qualifications and was therefore available immediately to be placed on shift, rather than needing to undertake the Station Officer Program.

[44] In response to the Respondent's reliance on cl 59 of the Agreement, the Appellant submits that, whilst cl 59 does establish a classification which recognises employees who have undertaken further training to attain Station Officer qualifications, LFFs are not treated the same as substantive Station Officers by the Agreement. As an example, the Appellant cites LFFs being eligible for higher duties when relieving at Station Officer classification.

[45] In response to the Respondent's argument that it is the intent of PR3123 that LFFs be exempt from the Practical Endorsement, in the same way as substantive Station Officers, the Appellant contends that when the procedure is read as a whole, LFFs and Station Officers are treated differently.

[46] The Appellant also maintains that across multiple different versions of the PR3123, the way in which LFFs are to engage with the Practical Endorsement differs.

[47] The Appellant notes that v2.2 of PR3123, which was in place at the time of the recruitment process, explicitly required all LFFs to complete the practical endorsement. Version 1.2 required any LFFs who could not 'evidence a minimum of six (6) months relieving at SO level within the previous three (3) years' to complete it.

[48] It is submitted that there is no scope for the Respondent to reasonably infer 'intent' or 'customary practice' into these documents that would permit LFFs to be exempt from the Practical Endorsement.

[49] The Appellant further submits that the intent of both versions of PR3123 is actually for non-substantive Station Officer applicants to demonstrate that they currently hold the desired skills, either by being able to pass the Practical Endorsement or by demonstrating recent use of equivalent skills.

[50] The Appellant notes that the successful applicant attained their LFF classification six years prior to this recruitment process. It is further submitted that it is unclear if the Respondent conducted any assessment of the currency of the successful candidate's skills and knowledge.

[51] It is contended by the Appellant that the Respondent's reliance upon informal historical interpretation, 'customary practice' or 'intent' is inconsistent with the PS Act's requirements for transparency and fairness.

[52] It is also contended by the Appellant in accordance with the version of PR3123 in place at the time of the recruitment process, the Respondent could not award LFFs an exemption from the Practical Endorsement and could also not simply award the LFFs the maximum score as they have done.

[53] Further, the Appellant contends that the successful applicant did not meet the criteria to be placed on to the suitability list as they did not complete all steps of the recruitment process and was therefore an ineligible person and their presence on the list rendered it an invalid suitability list. The recruitment process did not meet the requirements of ss 44 and 45 of the PS Act.

[54] Deputy President Merrell in Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No 2)[5] ('Colebourne') considered the meaning of 'fair and reasonable' and concluded that it should be construed within the ordinary meaning of the phrase as used in the context of s 562B of the IR Act.[6]

[55] In Colebourne his Honour further noted that assessing whether a decision was 'fair and reasonable' is not an assessment of whether the decision was unreasonable only by reference to the legal standard.[7] His Honour concluded that assessing whether a decision was 'fair and reasonable' permitted a review of both the factual merits and legal reasonableness of both the decision itself and the process of making that decision.[8]

[56] The recruitment and selection process does not have to be perfect in order for it to be considered reasonable.[9]

[57] Pursuant to s 562C(2) of the IR Act, the Commission may only set aside a promotion decision if the Commission finds that the recruitment or selection process was deficient having regard to whether the process complied with the PS Act, a regulation or a Directive made by the Public Sector Commissioner.

[58] Section 44 of the PS Act sets out the principles underpinning recruitment and selection. Section 44(3)(a) confirms that the recruitment and selection processes must be directed to the selection of the eligible person best suited to the position.

[59] Section 44(3)(b) of the PS Act confirms that recruitment and selection processes must be fair and transparent.

[60] Section 45(1) of the PS Act provides that a person selected for employment in or to a public sector entity must be the eligible applicant best suited to the position.

[61] Clause 4 of the Recruitment Directive is headed 'Principles' and cl 4.2(a) provides that Chief Executives are required to act in a way that is compatible with the main purpose of the Act by treating public sector employees fairly.

[62] Clause 4.6 of the Recruitment Directive repeats the requirements of s 44 of the PS Act (noted above).

[63] Clause 5 of the Recruitment Directive is headed 'Directions'. Clause 5.2 relevantly provides:

(a) provide for the way in which recruitment or selection processes in public sector entities must be carried out

(b) provide for the way in which the principles underpinning recruitment and selection (provided for in section 44(3) of the Act) are to be applied

(c) establish how matters provided for in section 45(2) of the Act are to be considered.

[64] Clause 5.3 of the Recruitment Directive confirms that the requirements set out in the directions are binding and must be followed.

[65] Clause 8.9 of the Recruitment Directive requires that vacancies must be advertised in a way that maximises quality and diverse applicant pools. Clause 8.10(a) then relevantly provides that at a minimum the chief executive of a public service entity must advertise a vacancy for a period of 10 working days (exclusive of the Christmas to new year closure period) on the Queensland Government careers website.

[66] Clause 8.13 of the Recruitment Directive provides a list of information that must be provided when a vacancy is advertised which includes:

(a) a description of the duties and key capabilities against which the applicant will be assessed

(b) any mandatory conditions or qualifications of the position

(h) for identified roles, the mandatory attribute/s applicants must possess, and any required evidence of the attribute/s

[67] On 16 December 2024, several Station Officer positions were advertised through recruitment process QFD/20443/24, with a closing date of 17 January 2025.[10]

[68] The advertisement for the role noted that recruitment and selection for these positions would be in accordance with PR3123.[11]

[69] The advertisement set out the mandatory requirements for the role and the key accountabilities for the Station Officer role.

[70] I am satisfied that the Respondent has complied with Clause 8.13 of the Recruitment and Selection Directive.

Appeal Ground 1 - Inconsistent application of the merit principle

[71] The Appellant submits that he scored 4.76 out of 5 for the recruitment process and placed eighth on the merit list.[12] The Appellant's suggestion that he placed eighth on the merit list appears inconsistent with the Order of Suitability from the panel selection report which apparently has him ranked fourth.[13] Attachment 9 relevantly provides:

The table below represents the final order of merit/suitability, with the Practice Endorsement results applied, for applicants who are considered suitable for appointment to the role, with the person ranked as number one being considered the most suitable application for the role.

[72] The Appellant alleges that he was told by the successful applicant that they received a score of 3.9 out of 5. This is clearly hearsay evidence, and there is no documentary evidence available to corroborate that this information is correct.

[73] The information that has been provided by the Appellant as a result of the Right to Information request is firstly incomplete, and secondly is heavily redacted and only provides information relevant to the Appellant.

[74] I have previously observed in Green v State of Queensland (Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation)[14] the difficulties that heavily redacted (or incomplete) selection reports present for the Commission when considering and determining a promotion appeal.

[75] These difficulties are further exacerbated when the Appellant alleges that they are a more meritorious candidate than the candidate actually appointed to the role.

[76] Clause 9.10(b) of the Recruitment Directive requires the selection panel to conduct a holistic assessment of eligible applicants in the context of the role requirements and the factors provided for in s 45(2) of the PS Act. Clause 9.10(c) of the Recruitment Directive requires the selection panel to clearly document why a person is assessed as being the eligible applicant best suited to the position, including a comparative assessment where there is more than one applicant in a process.

[77] The ability of the Commission to make an evidence based assessment as to whether the promotion decision is fair and reasonable and determine whether the person best suited to the role has been appointed is markedly impaired where the parties provide a partial or redacted selection report.

[78] The Appellant also alleges that he holds a range of other skills or complementary qualifications including:

(i) All five Technical Rescue disciplines,

(ii) Mountain rescue,

(iii) MSRC,

(iv) Aerial appliance operator qualifications,

(v) Has extensive instructor experience (Recruit Courses, Live Fire instructor and co-ordinator, Technical Rescue Level 1),

(vi) And has acted as Professional Development Officer for Sunshine Coast Division and in the Brisbane Region.[15]

[79] In Schedule 1, the Appellant goes on to allege that it is his understanding that the successful applicant does not hold any of these qualifications. The Appellant does not reveal the source of the Appellant's understanding.

[80] The Respondent in its submissions, acknowledges the qualifications held by the Appellant, however, it submits that these qualifications do not deem the Appellant more suitable than DL who already held the Station Officer qualification.

[81] The difficulty with that submission is that firstly it presupposes that DL was eligible, secondly it provides primacy to the holding of the Station Officer qualification over all other qualifications and thirdly, it provides some indication that the Respondent may not have undertaken the holistic assessment of the eligible applicants as required by cl 9.10(b) of the Recruitment Directive.

[82] The Appellant may well be correct that there has been an inconsistent application of the merit principle, however, the evidence required to confirm that this has occurred is not before the Commission. As a consequence, the Appellant's first ground of appeal is dismissed.

Appeal Ground 2 - Inconsistent application of mandatory practical assessment

Appeal Ground 3 - The successful applicant was incorrectly awarded the maximum score for the Practical Endorsement

[83] I am satisfied that these two grounds can be addressed together.

[84] As noted above, the Respondent's advertisement for recruitment process QFD/20443/24 confirmed that applicants would be assessed in accordance with QFD PR3123.[16]

Special Conditions: Successful applicants will be appointed to the rank of Station Officer and will be allocated to a role at the discretion of the delegated authority. The officer may be re-allocated to an alternative Station Officer role at the same work location as operationally required. Appointees may be required to undertake other duties at an equal rank or act in positions at a higher rank.

This is an operational position. Only applicants with relevant firefighting experience should apply.

Applicants wishing to be permanently appointed to a position at the rank of Station Officer must meet all relevant pre-requisite requirements as provided in PR3123 - Station Officer Recruitment: Assessment and Training Requirements,

[86] Version 2.2 of PR3123 was effective from 16 December 2024, coincidentally, the date that recruitment process QFD/20443/24 was advertised by the Respondent.

[87] Under the heading of 'What I need to know and why', PR3123 relevantly provides:

• There are several phases in the process and applicants are required to successfully complete each phase before progressing to the next phase. Every assessment has a minimum requirement designed to reflect the occupational requirements (operational, leadership and management) for the QFR SO role and failure to achieve the departmental standards required of each assessment will result in the applicant not progressing in the process. Minimum departmental requirements of assessments specifically reflect the occupational requirements (operational, leadership and management) for the role of a QFR SO.

• Final selection will be based on the suitability for the role, departmental requirements, priorities, and regional location requirements. This entails a holistic assessment of eligible applicants in the context of their suitability to undertake SO role requirements and accountabilities, their potential, and their contribution to the Queensland Fire Department (QFD) commitment to equity, diversity, respect, and inclusion. (Emphasis added.)[17]

[88] PR3123 goes on to set out the application and training requirements which involve;

1. Pre-requisite requirements
2. Written Application
3. Panel Interview
4. Practical Endorsement
5. Referee and Integrity checks.[18]

[89] In relation to the 'Practical Endorsement', Version 2.2 of PR3123 relevantly provides:

• All applicants are required to successfully complete a practical endorsement, unless they are already a substantive QFR SO. This practical assessment evaluates the applicant's ability to control and manage a Level One incident (eight personnel) and will cover effective incident briefing and debriefing, initial response, resource utilisation, the development, implementation, and evaluation of an Incident Action Plan (IAP) and overall safety considerations during an incident.

• Applicants will also undertake a debrief with panel members to provide clarity and detail on decision making and outline policy, procedure and doctrine considerations when performing the duties of an Incident Controller.[19]

[90] The Appellant, in Schedule 1 to the Appeal Notice, states that the recruitment for the Station Officer position was conducted in accordance with 'Station Officer Application Process 2025/2026 (Version 1.3)'.[20]

[91] The Station Officer Application Process noted under the heading 'Selection Process Overview' as follows:

The selection process for the rank of SO is a four-step process. You must be deemed successful in each step to progress to the next. The four steps are:

1. Written Application - consists of application form, resume, and statement of suitability.
2. Panel Interview - panel interview to verbally demonstrate your skills and knowledge to perform the role of SO.
3. Practical Endorsement - endorsement process of your practical ability to manage a simulated fire incident, demonstrating your command and control of two QFR urban appliances (8 personnel).
4. Station Officer Program - consists of pre course activities and 2 x 3.5-week residential training blocks that includes theoretical and practical training and assessments to prepare applicants for the role of QFR SO.

[92] There was a material change to PR3123 between Version 1.2 and Version 2.2.

[93] Version 1.2 of PR3123[21] was effective between 23 March 2022 and August 2024 and provided that LFFs were not required to undertake the practical endorsement.[22]

[94] Clause 5.0 of Version 1.2 of PR3123 addressed 'State Endorsement' and relevantly provided:

Applicable to all internal FRS SFF and external applicants. Also applicable to any FRS LFF who is unable to evidence a minimum of six (6) months relieving at SO level within the previous three (3) years.

All applicants are required to successfully complete a State Endorsement process to be eligible for placement on SO1 unless they are already a substantive FRS SO or LFF (with exception of circumstances described above). This will include a practical scenario to ensure the applicant can demonstrate currency and relevancy of their skills and knowledge in relation to an operational incident. A practical scenario consisting of two urban appliances and a special (10 personnel) will be utilised for the purpose of evaluation.

LFFs who have not completed a minimum of six months relieving at SO level within the previous three years will be required to successfully complete the State Endorsement assessment.

State Endorsement will be assessed by identified State Assessors and will be conducted centrally at SFEST or an identified assessment venue; successful results will be valid for 12 months from the date of successful completion.

External applicants will be required to successfully complete this aspect of the recruitment process at their own expense in order to progress. QFES will provide the venue and all necessary resources for applicants to be able to demonstrate the requirements of State Endorsement. The endorsement will be conducted in accordance with FRS policy and procedure - candidates are responsible for ensuring their own preparedness for this.

[95] It can be seen from cl 5.0 of Version 1.2 of PR3123 that LFFs were exempted from completing the State Endorsement, but only in circumstances where the LFF was able to demonstrate that they had completed six months relieving at Station Officer level in the preceding three years.

[96] The Appellant's contention is a simple one. Version 2.2 of PR3123 only provides an exemption from completing the Practical Endorsement to a substantive QFR SO.

[97] The successful candidate, DL held the rank of a substantive LFF and was not a substantive SO. As a consequence, they were not entitled to an exemption from completing the practical endorsement and was not entitled to be awarded the maximum score for the practical endorsement.

[98] The Appellant further contends that the selection panel's decision to grant DL an exemption circumvented PR3123's requirement for applicants to pass each assessment and thereby demonstrate that they hold the occupational requirements for the role.

[99] In response to those contentions, the Respondent submits that substantive Station Officers and LFFs are not required to undertake the practical endorsement or Station Officer program due to already having completed these prior to their appointment to LFF and Station Officer levels.

[100] Whilst acknowledging that Version 2.2 of PR3123 does not specifically state that LFF are exempt from the requirement to undertake the Practical Endorsement stage of the process (which is clear from the text of cl 4 of Version 2.2), the Respondent contends that it has always been the intent for LFF to be exempt given that they have already completed the Practical Endorsement and Station Officer programs.

[101] I am unable to accept the Respondent's contention that it has always been the intent or customary practice for LFFs to be exempt from the Practical Endorsement assessment.

[102] Firstly, that contention contradicts, and is inconsistent with, the clear wording of cl 4 of the version of PR3123 that was operative at the time of this recruitment and selection process. There is absolutely no ambiguity about cl 4, the exemption from undertaking the practical endorsement only applied to substantively appointed Station Officers.

[103] Secondly, PR3123 is the Respondent's own policy. The changes that occurred between Versions 1.2 and 2.2 of PR3123 appear to have been deliberately made by the Respondent to narrow the class of officers that are entitled to be exempted from the requirement of undertaking the practical endorsement. This deliberate change is inconsistent with the Respondent having an intention that LFFs should be exempt.

[104] Thirdly, even under the earlier iteration of PR3123 (Version 1.2), cl 5 did not contain an automatic exemption for all LFFs from undertaking what was then identified as the 'State Endorsement'. Under that version of the policy if an LFF was unable to demonstrate the six months experience of relieving as a Station Officer, the LFF was still required to undertake the state endorsement assessment process.

[105] I accept the Appellant's reply submission, that the apparent intent of both versions of PR3123 is actually for non-substantive Station Officer applicants to demonstrate that they currently hold the desired skills, either by being able to pass the Practical Endorsement or by demonstrating recent use of equivalent skills.[23]

[106] If the Respondent did intend that all LFFs who had completed the Practical Endorsement and the Station Officer program should be exempted, it was open for the Respondent to clearly state this in cl 4 of PR3123. Instead of doing so, the Respondent has in fact limited the exemption to substantive Station Officers in the amendments made to PR3123.

[107] From the Right to Information request made by the Appellant, the Appellant has received redacted sections of the recruitment and selection report. The section of the report dealing with the Practical Endorsement states:

Applicants at the rank of Senior Firefighter (SFF) were required to successfully complete a Practical Endorsement assessment to be eligible for consideration of placement onto a Station Officer Program (SOP). This included a practical scenario to ensure the applicant can demonstrate currency and relevancy of their skills and knowledge in relation to an operational incident.

The Practical Endorsement is a merit selection technique undertaken only by those substantively appointed to the rank of SFF; substantive Leading Firefighters (LFF) and Station Officers (SO) were not required to complete the Practical Endorsement.

SFF applicants were required to obtain 70% or higher in their Practical Endorsement; results contribute to suitability.

Of the 34 applicants successful at interview, only 25 were required to complete the Practical Endorsement.[24]

[108] No explanation has been provided in the documentary evidence available to the Commission, or in the submissions from the Respondent, on what basis the selection panel have exempted the LFFs from the Practical Endorsement, in light of the clear wording of cl 4 of PR3123.

[109] The inference appears open to be drawn that in undertaking its task, the selection panel have either incorrectly utilised Version 1.2 of PR3123, rather than the current version of that policy, or granted DL an exemption that was not available under Version 2.2 of PR3123.

[110] I also note that DL was appointed to the LFF pay point on 7 November 2018 following the successful completion of the Officer Development Program (now known as the Station Officer Program) on 7 November 2018. This was approximately six years prior to the recruitment process commencing in QFD/20443/24. There is no evidence before the Commission to establish whether DL had relieved as a Station Officer for six months in the preceding three years.

[111] At all times relevant to recruitment process QFD/20443/24 DL held the substantive rank of LFF and was not a substantive Station Officer.

[112] It therefore follows that according to Version 2.2 of PR3123, DL should not have received an exemption from undertaking and passing the Practical Endorsement (and the subsequent debrief process), and nor was DL entitled to be awarded the maximum score for the practical endorsement.

[113] According to Version 2.2 of PR3123 each applicant was required to successfully complete each phase before progressing to the next phase. Further, failure to achieve the departmental standards required of each assessment would result in the applicant not progressing in the process.

[114] Given that DL did not complete the Practical Endorsement as required by Version 2.2 of PR3123, it is difficult to see how they could be an 'eligible applicant'.

[115] I am satisfied that the Appellant has established Appeal Grounds 2 and 3 and has also established that the recruitment and selection process was flawed and deficient for the reasons set out above.

[116] By granting DL an exemption from the Practical Endorsement stage and awarding DL maximum points for the Practical Endorsement, the selection panel have not complied with Version 2.2 of PR3123.

[117] I am therefore satisfied that the recruitment and selection process was not fair and transparent as required by s 44(3)(b) of the PS Act and cl 4.6(b) of the Recruitment Directive.

[118] For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the Appellant has established the second and third grounds of appeal and that he has established that there was a deficiency in the selection process.

[119] For the reasons set out above, I find that the promotion decision appealed against was not fair and reasonable, as the selection process was deficient.

[120] In making this decision I fully acknowledge the impact this will have on the successful applicant DL who will be unfortunately adversely impacted by the failure of the Respondent to conduct the recruitment and selection process in accordance with its own procedures.

[121] The appeal is upheld and I make the following orders.

1. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the promotion decision appealed against is set aside. The matter is returned to the Queensland Fire Department with a copy of this decision.

1. I direct that, within one month, the chief executive of the Queensland Fire Department is to revoke the appointment of the successful applicant to the position of Station Officer, Sunshine Coast Division, Greater Brisbane Region, Queensland Fire and Rescue, Gympie (FFSO), reference number QFD/20443/24, and publish a gazette notice that the appointment is revoked.

1. A new selection panel is to be formed, for the purpose of selecting an applicant for the vacant position of Station Officer, Sunshine Coast Division, Greater Brisbane Region, Queensland Fire and Rescue, Gympie (FFSO), reference number QFD/20443/24 ('the vacant position'). The new selection panel must not include any member of the previous selection panel.

2. The new selection panel should be provided with a copy of sections 44 and 45 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) and the Directive 07/23: Recruitment and Selection.

3. The chief executive is to recommence the recruitment and selection process for the vacant position from the point of advertising the vacancy.

[1] Pursuant to r 97(3)(b) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 ('the Tribunal Rules'), the name of the successful applicant has been anonymised because they are not a respondent to this Appeal.

[2] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B(2).

[3] Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018), 5; Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 567(1) and s562B(2).

[4] Page v John Thompson and Lesley Dwyer, As Chief Executive Officer, West Moreton Hospital and Health Service [2014] QSC 252, [60]-[61] (Byrne SJA).

[5] [2022] QIRC 16.

[6] Ibid, at [25], citing Pope v Lawler [1996] FCA 1446.

[7] Colebourne at [21]-[22] and [25].

[8] Ibid, at [23] citing Goodall v State of Queensland (Unreported decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018), 5 as to the former, equivalent provisions in s 201 of the Public Service Act 2008.

[9] Bayntun v State of Queensland (Department of Tourism, Innovation and Sport) [2022] QIRC 361, 24

[10] Appellant's submissions, Attachment 3 - Advertisement for recruitment process Reference No: QFD/20443/24.

[12] Appeal Notice, Attachment 6: Excerpt from the selection panel report for recruitment process 20443.

[14] [2025] QIRC 151, [80] and [100].

[15] Appeal Notice, Schedule 1, [7](c).

[16] Appellant's submissions, Attachment 3.

[17] PR3123- Station Officer Recruitment: Assessments and Training Requirements, Appellant's submissions, Attachment 4.

[20] Appeal Notice (n 15), [7]a) and Attachment 4.

[21] Respondent's submissions, Attachment 1.

[23] Respondent's reply submissions, [10].