Hopkinson v State of Queensland

Superseded Directive 09/20: Fixed Term Temporary Employment

Department of Education State School Teachers' Certified Agreement 2019

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

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

O'Hearn v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 283

• [1] Ms Hopkinson is employed at Malanda State School as an Experienced Senior Teacher (Music) (0.5 FTE) and Experienced Senior Teacher (General) (0.5 FTE). She has occupied this dual role since 6 December 2021. On 18 September 2024 Ms Hopkinson lodged an Individual Employee Grievance (IEG), to dispute the dual position and contended her position should be 'returned' to a full-time Experienced Senior Teacher (Music).[1]
• [2] Following the Stage 1, Local Action Decision (LAD) being issued by Acting Principal Ms Archibald on 18 October 2024 Ms Hopkinson sought a Stage 2 Internal Review.
• [3] It is the Internal Review Decision (IRD) dated 6 January 2025, by Mr Damien Cricchiola, (Executive Director, Integrity and Employee Relations, Human Resources) ('the decision-maker') received 9 January 2025, that is the subject of this Appeal.
• [4] The IRD confirmed as fair and reasonable the outcome of the LAD, which was that Ms Hopkinson's role and duties were as agreed with her in 2021 and that no further action should be taken.
• [5] For the reasons that follow, I have found the decision to confirm the LAD was reasonably open to the decision-maker and the process followed was fair. The IRD subject to the Appeal is confirmed.

• [6] Ms Hopkinson commenced her employment with the Department on a temporary basis in 1994. From that time until 20 January 2021 Ms Hopkinson worked in several roles on a temporary basis including Instrumental Music Instructor, Senior Instrumental Music Instructor, Senior Teacher (Music) and as an Experienced Senior Teacher (Music), with some breaks in service.[2]
• [7] Ms Hopkinson was engaged as a temporary Experienced Senior Teacher on a full time basis with Malanda State School from 1 January 2019 to November 2020.[3] Upon reaching two years of continuous employment, Ms Hopkinson accepted a permanent position at Malanda State School at the end of 2020 to commence the following school year.[4] At the time of accepting the offer, Ms Hopkinson explains she believed she was employed as and would continue indefinitely in the position of 'permanent full time music specialist'.[5]
• [8] The offer is attached to Ms Hopkinson's submissions and is reproduced below (emphasis added):[6]

• [9] Ms Hopkinson states she continued in the permanent full time music specialist role in 2021, arguing this is evidenced by an email about 'staff roles and fractions' from Mr Mark Allen, Principal ('Mr Allen') which includes a table reflecting Ms Hopkinson teaching classroom music.[7]
• [10] Ms Hopkinson submitted in her formal grievance that, prior to being made permanent, Mr Allen discussed with her the need to add other Arts subjects in line with the National Curriculum. Ms Hopkinson agreed to incorporate media arts, dance and drama into her program for 2021. The proper classification of Ms Hopkinson's role for the 2021 school year has become the subject of contention between the parties. The Department says that Ms Hopkinson was relieving at level during this time, which Ms Hopkinson contends is an assertion not supported by evidence.
• [11] In August 2021, Mr Allen suggested to Ms Hopkinson that classroom music would be reduced to 0.5 FTE and raised taking on the role of Instrumental Music Teacher at 0.3 FTE, totalling 0.8 FTE. Ms Hopkinson declined and explained she wished to remain as a full-time music teacher.[8]
• [12] Later that month, Mr Allen alerted Ms Hopkinson to the fact that due to the introduction of a new subject, new NCT increases and implementation of a 'new P-12 CARF that had the Arts at 1 hour per week', 'music must be reduced to 0.5 FTE for 2022.'[9] Correspondence from Mr Allen to Ms Hopkinson on 16 August 2021 is reproduced below, with Ms Hopkinson contending that the offers made by Mr Allen in this email were either 'not full time or not confirmed to be available':[10]

As you're aware, NCT increases in 2022 for all teachers and we've had to introduce a new subject to take place. The new p-12 CARF has The Arts at 1 hour per week (all 5 areas). At this stage, we definitely have 0.5 FTE classroom music programmed for 2022.

We have some ideas below that will make up the 1.0 FTE, which I'd like to discuss with you as soon as we can:

• Classroom - Share a class/program with a colleague
  • Targeted Release - Work within our school on class 0.5 FTE (Like the work Patrick is doing currently)
• IM - Resume that program in addition to Classroom Music[11]
• Circuit - Classroom Music on a circuit if one is available.

I am more than happy to discuss these in person - Do you have availability this week?

• [13] Ms Hopkinson approached Human Resources to gain clarity by email on 12 November 2021 to Mr Jeff Shelden, Director. Ms Hopkinson's email sets out what occurred after Ms Hopkinson received the above email:[12]

... Mark Allen (Principal) approached me about my position at Malanda State school Tuesday 10/8/21 to ask if I would like to be 0.8 FTE and take the position of Music Specialist and Instrumental Music...

I made it clear to Mark that I did not want to be 0.8 FTE and wanted to stay as the fulltime music specialist. Mark in return sent me an email 16/8/2021, stating I had no choice and gave me 4 options to consider.

As I understood that I had no choice, I had an interview with Mark to discuss these options on Tuesday 17/8/21 and in this conversation I agreed to a 1.0 FTE which included music specialist, instrumental music position and targeted release to make up the 1.0 FTE, as the music specialist and instrumental music was only 0.8 FTE.

...The union advised me to see Mark Allen personally and relay information from the union, that supported my role to stay as 1.0 FTE music specialist. Mark's response was upsetting and in return he emailed me a response, outlining that there were additional pressures to cater for in terms of increased NCT for teachers...

Can you please confirm in writing that I am entitled to remain in my 1.0 FTE position...As you can imagine this is a very stressful time.

• [14] Ms Hopkinson received a response from Ms Katie Davey, Principal Human Resources Consultant for Far North Queensland ('Ms Davey') that stated the following:[13]

... Changes in the curriculum requirements for 'The Arts' have meant that some schools are now requiring less music delivery to support curriculum across 'The Arts'. It is appropriate for the Principal to discuss with you options to utilise your specialist skills to best meet the needs of students at Malanda State School in line with the curriculum requirements. It is also appropriate for the Principal to discuss how the increase in Non-Contact for teachers is to be implemented. Your employment status and fraction cannot be amended via these processes. I can confirm that you are employed as a full time Music Teacher at Malanda State School. Mr Mark Allen...has sought assistance from the Regional Human Resources Team to review the Music circuit requirements in the area...

• [15] However, on 3 December 2021, Ms Cathy Hay, Senior Human Resources Consultant clarified that Ms Hopkinson was employed as an 'Experienced Senior Teacher General':

I can confirm that your classification is recorded correctly as Experienced Senior Teacher, however your position title is recorded as Teacher General as per the temporary to permanent offer of employment made to you on 20 November 2020 and your confirmation of acceptance of this position on 23 November 2020.

I acknowledge you received advise (sic) from Katie Davey on 22 November 2021 stating you were employed as a full-time Music Teacher at Malanda State School and advise that this was the understanding of the position you were undertaking for the 2021 school year and not an actual reflection of your permanent position title.

I have discussed your request with the Principal Mr Mark Allen and he is supportive of reflecting your position of 0.5 Teacher Music and 0.5 Teacher General from 20 January 2022 in line with the commencement of the new school year.

Could you please confirm via return email that you are happy to accept your position titles being reflected as 0.5 Music and 0.5 General.

• [16] Following clarification from Human Resources that Ms Hopkinson was classified as a general teacher, and that the Principal was willing to offer a split of 0.5 music and 0.5 general teaching, Ms Hopkinson 'reluctantly accepted' the arrangement 'to avoid any further reduction of her music teaching fraction' on 6 December 2021:[14]

... I confirm that I am happy to accept my position titles being reflected as 0.5 Music and 0.5 General.

• [17] Following Ms Hopkinson's acceptance on 6 December 2021, she was appointed permanently as a 0.5 FTE Experienced Senior Teacher General and 0.5 FTE Experienced Senior Teacher Music, effective from 20 January 2022. Ms Hopkinson characterises her acceptance of this offer as 'under duress'.[15]

• [18] As outlined above, the Stage 2 IRD was issued by the decision-maker on 6 January 2025. The decision-maker summarised the outcome of the Stage 1 LAD as follows:[16]

The Local Action Decision (LAD) stated that no further action would be taken, with respect to your Grievance, as Malanda State School is not able to offer full time music at this time and you have advised that you are not interested in alternatives such as circuits, Instrumental Music or classroom music in another school location. Ms Archibald encouraged you to consider the alternatives that have been offered and to continue to have conversations with the principal, should you wish to pursue these alternatives. Ms Archibald also encouraged you to identify opportunities and capability development for your professional growth via the Annual Performance Development Plan process.

• [19] The IRD summarised the elements of Ms Hopkinson's concerns regarding the LAD as follows:

I have carefully considered your Internal Review Request and by way of summary,

I understand that you are dissatisfied with the LAD for the following reasons (Concerns):

1. You assert that you accepted the 0.5 FTE music and 0.5 FTE general teacher position,

under duress, as opposed to the music specialist role you were completing, in a full-time

1. You do not believe the work you were performing, in a full-time capacity, as classroom

music teacher for 2021 was in a relieving capacity as it was not specified that your duties

at the time, were relieving at-level, nor do you believe you were replacing an existing teacher.

1. You highlight that you have been advised that a specialist teacher's fraction cannot be

amended to accommodate changes in non-contact provisions and assert that 7.3.3 of the

Department of Education Teachers' Certified Agreement 2019 (2019 Agreement) has

1. You believe the information provided by your previous Principal, Mr Mark Allen, indicates that you were a full-time classroom music teacher for the 2021 school year.
2. You believe there are irrelevant and ill-intended statements within the LAD and that each

of the points in your Grievance should have been specifically addressed.

6. You claim that there is no evidence to support that you were offered alternatives on a

number of occasions to teach music in a full-time capacity.

1. You conclude from the communications with Human Resources (HR) that you should be a full-time music specialist teacher and that your original permanent offer was made in error.

I understand you are seeking a full-time (1.0 FTE) music specialist role at Malanda State School to resolve your Grievance.

• [20] The IRD goes on to confirm the decision as fair and reasonable in the circumstances, with no further action to be taken - other than the offer of mediation between Ms Hopkinson and Ms Archibald (as the incumbent Malanda State School Principal).

• [21] Ms Hopkinson applies for review of a 'fair treatment decision' under s 131(1)(d) of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('the PS Act'):

131 Decisions against which appeals may be made

(1) An appeal may be made against the following decisions -

(2) However, if an appeal may be made under this section against a decision, other than under subsection (1) (d), the appeal can not be made under subsection (1)(d).

(3) This section is subject to section 132.

• [22] The PS Act defines a 'fair treatment decision' as a decision that a 'public sector employee believes is unfair and unreasonable.'[17]
• [23] As an employee aggrieved by the decision, Ms Hopkinson is eligible to appeal. While the IRD is dated 6 January 2025, it was issued to Ms Hopkinson on 9 January 2025.[18] The appeal is within time.[19]
• [24] The Commission is to 'decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.'[20] This involves consideration of the decision arrived at, having regard to the information available to the decision-maker at the time the decision was made, and the process followed. The words 'fair' and 'reasonable' have their ordinary meanings.[21] The Commission is not confined to legal reasonableness.[22]
• [25] The appeal is by way of review, not by way of rehearing the merits of the matter.[23] Findings made which are reasonably open to the decision-maker are not expected to be disturbed on appeal.[24]
• [26] The submissions of Ms Hopkinson make clear she is seeking to review the LAD as well as the Stage 2 IRD. The LAD is not the subject of this appeal, however, I will have some limited regard to it when assessing the IRD. This Appeal is not a rehearing of the underlying grievance.
• [27] The Commission is empowered to make the following orders:

562C Public service appeals - decision on appeal

(1) In deciding a public service appeal, the commission may -

(c) for another appeal - set the decision aside, and substitute another decision or return the matter to the decision-maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions considered appropriate.

• [28] Ms Hopkinson has not identified the order she seeks the Commission make.
• [29] The Department contends that the IRD was fair and reasonable and seek that it be confirmed.[25]

• [30] Directive 11/20 'Individual Employee Grievances' ('the Directive') states:
  1. Matters that can be subject of an individual employee grievance

5.1 An individual employee grievance under this directive is a grievance submitted by a current public service employee who has an honest belief, based on reasonable grounds, that:

(a) an administrative decision, which they are aggrieved by, is unfair and unreasonable

1. Individual employee grievance resolution principles

8.1 Employees are required to ensure that individual employee grievances are submitted as soon as reasonably possible after the administrative decision, alleged conduct or alleged behaviour has occurred.

8.2 Individual employee grievances are to be managed and resolved using a three-step process:

(a) local action (the first stage of the individual employee grievance process)

(b) internal review of a decision made following local action (the second stage of the individual employee grievance process), and

(c) where applicable, external review of a decision made at internal review (the third stage of the individual employee grievance process).

8.3 Agencies, including managers and supervisors, must manage individual employee grievances:

(a) in accordance with principles of natural justice, including timely decisions and the provision of adequate reasons;

(b) in a manner that protects the privacy of the employee who has submitted the grievance subject to any legal disclosure obligations, such as the requirement to provide natural justice to the subject of the grievance; and

8.4 All parties to an individual employee grievance:

(a) must engage in the individual employee grievance process in good faith; and

(b) be provided with regular and timely information by the decision-maker in relation to the progress of the individual employee grievance.

9. Procedures for managing and resolving individual employee grievances

(a) If an employee is dissatisfied with a decision made through local action, the employee may make a written request to the agency chief executive for an internal review.

(i) be received by the chief executive within 14 days of the employee receiving a copy of the decision made through local action or a decision is taken be made under clause 9.1(e)

(ii) clearly state the reasons for dissatisfaction with the decision made through local action, and not merely state a belief that the decision made through local action was unfair and unreasonable, and

(iii) state the action the employee believes would resolve the grievance.

(c) Once an agency receives a request for an internal review, the agency must notify the employee in writing:

(i) that the request for internal review has been received by the agency

(ii) of the name and contact information for a contact person for the internal review, and

(iii) of the 14 day timeframe for making a decision in clause 9.2(f).

(d) An internal review is to be completed by the chief executive or their delegate. The chief executive or delegate is to determine whether the decision made through local action was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

(e) If the chief executive or delegate is satisfied that:

(i) the reasons for seeking an internal review are insufficient

(ii) the request for internal review is frivolous or vexatious, or

(iii) the employee has unreasonably refused to participate in local action to resolve the individual employee grievance

The agency may decide to take no further action in relation to the request for internal review. The agency must give written reasons for its decision ...

(h) At the completion of the internal review, including a decision to take no further action under clause 9.2(e), the chief executive or delegate must provide a written decision to the employee. This decision must:

(i) outline the action taken to review the decision made through local action

(ii) outline the reasons for the decision, or the decision to take no further action

(iii) outline any action that the chief executive or delegate proposes to take, or will take, as a result of the internal review; and

(iv) outline any avenues of external review that may be available to the employee, including any relevant timeframe.

• [31] The grounds of appeal set out in the Appeal Notice focus on a disagreement between Ms Hopkinson and the Department about the proper description of her role, and the basis of her employment, as follows:

I wish to appeal against the response to my grievance and the internal review by Education Queensland as follows:

1. The grievance was rejected largely on the assertion that my position as a music teacher was temporary. My understanding was and is that at the time of being offered a fixed-term position and then a permanent position, the music teaching position was ongoing and not temporary.
2. The grievance response states that I was in a temporary position, and that advice provided in writing by the regional HR director was 'misleading', but no documentary evidence has been provided to support these statements.
3. The internal review states that I did not teach music as a full time, permanent position, and uses this statement to justify the rejection of my grievance case. This is incorrect and is contradicted by documentation supplied in support of the grievance.

• [32] Ms Hopkinson has raised several concerns relating to the Stage 1 LAD that she submits render the decision unfair and unreasonable. While this is not the decision subject to appeal, many of the conclusions in the IRD confirm the reasoning and factual basis of the LAD. There are two main concerns with the LAD that are also relevant to my review of the IRD.
• [33] First is that when Ms Hopkinson's employment was converted from temporary to permanent in 2020, she was continued in the same role of Senior Experienced Teacher (Music) at Malanda State School in 2021. In her view, the conversion letter appointing her to a full-time general teacher role, which she accepted, was done in error. The relatively recent claims of the Department that she was temporarily relieving at level in the full-time Experienced Teacher Music Role during that year is not supported in Ms Hopkinson's view, by the evidence, including her job description, the letter from Ms Davey of HR, payroll reports, or advice from her Principal.[26]
• [34] Second are the events leading to Ms Hopkinson's acceptance of the dual role of Experienced Senior Teacher (Music) and Senior Experienced Teacher (General). It is the administrative decision to appoint her to this role in 2021 that underpins the IEG lodged in 2024. Ms Hopkinson now claims the decision was made under duress. The assertion in the LAD that Ms Hopkinson had been 'offered alternatives to be able to teach music in a full-time capacity' by Malanda State School is not supported by any evidence, with Ms Hopkinson contending it was not incumbent upon her to accept positions that did not provide full time employment.
• [35] The Department say that, prior to 20 January 2021, Ms Hopkinson was engaged as a Senior Experienced Teacher (Music) 1.0 FTE on a temporary basis. The Department agree Ms Hopkinson taught specialist music subjects during 2021 following her conversion to permanent employment but do not agree that Ms Hopkinson was employed as a full time specialist music teacher from this date.[27]
• [36] The Department argues that reliance by Ms Hopkinson on correspondence from Ms Katie Davey is misplaced:[28]

The Appellant was aware, as outlined in the earlier correspondence with Mr Mark Allen, Principal, Malanda SS that the Appellant would be likely be timetabled for less than a full fraction of specialist teaching subjects. This emphasis seems misplaced given the significant evidence from the Principal; the HR Business Partnering teams emails to the contrary, including the email from Ms Cathy Hay, Senior Human Resources Consultant on 7 December 2022, and the Appellant's acknowledgement of the circumstances at various points.

• [37] The Department further say that the provisions of the certified agreement do not impose restrictions on the ability of principals to make timetable changes, including where it applies to teachers with specialist skills:[29]

Principals will determine the provision of specialist services in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and in accordance with the consultation requirements...[30]

• [38] The Department highlight that public service employees can lawfully be required to relieve at level.[31]
• [39] The Department contend that it was fair and reasonable, in light of the 'weight of evidence' as to Ms Hopkinson's status as a general teacher and the dearth of any provisions entitling Ms Hopkinson to permanent employment as a full-time music specialist, the decision to uphold the LAD's finding on relieving at level was fair and reasonable. Ms Hopkinson contends that 'this does not accurately represent the situation', and argues:[3]

The appellant was not asked to teach music as a general teacher. The appellant was a specialist music teacher continuing in the same role after temporary to permanent conversion.

• [40] Ms Hopkinson argues no evidence has been provided by the Respondent to support the claim she was 'temporary or relieving'. Ms Hopkinson refers to this as an 'unprovable' assertion underpinning the local action decision.[32] Ms Hopkinson says the Department cannot provide evidence that she was relieving at level, and reiterates her concern that the concept of 'relieving position' was first applied to her employment in the LAD, with no mention of this in correspondence or during discussions prior to the grievance being lodged.[33]

• [41] The main thrust of Ms Hopkinson's submissions directed to the IRD focus on what Ms Hopkinson argues is factual inaccuracy. Ms Hopkinson disagrees with the statement in the IRD that she did not, at any time, teach as a permanent full time Senior Experienced Teacher (Music).[34] Ms Hopkinson asserts this statement is incorrect and was incorrectly used to justify the rejection of her grievance.[35]
• [42] Ms Hopkinson argues she was a permanent employee teaching music full time in 2021.[36] Her contention seems to be that this arrangement should have continued.
• [43] Ms Hopkinson explains as follows:[37]

The internal review...the respondent states that the appellant did not teach at any time as a permanent, full time position of Senior Experienced Teacher (Music) and uses that statement to justify the rejection of my grievance case. This is incorrect and is contradicted by documentation supplied in support of the grievance. The appellant was a permanent teacher in a music teaching role full time for the year 2021...Also confirmed in the grievance response, that I was a music teacher for the year 2021, but it was a relieving...with no documentary evidence of the relieving role.

• [44] In contrast, Ms Hopkinson's perspective is that:

At the time of accepting the permanent position, the appellant believed that the position would be continuing indefinitely as a permanent full time music specialist. The appellant acknowledged and accepted all employment conditions outlined in Conditions of Employment: Classroom Teachers link and the Department of Education State School Teacher Certified Agreement.

• [45] The Department characterise this aspect of Ms Hopkinson's submissions as more directly addressing the IRD, but as still substantially reiterating elements of the grievance.[38]
• [46] The Department say it is not in question that Ms Hopkinson taught specialist music subjects in 2021, rather, that 'the key question is whether the Appellant was appointed as a full-time music specialist'. The Department point to the offer letter, reproduced at [8] above, which states the position title is 'Teacher General Primary'.[39]
• [47] Ms Hopkinson relies on an email from Mr Allen dated 25 November 2020 that is an update on proposed teacher staffing allocation for 2021. A table contained within the email reflects 'Classroom Music' as being taught by Jane Hopkinson.[40]
• [48] The Department refute that this email confirmed Ms Hopkinson's appointment as a specialist music teacher, rather, they say that it confirms that the subject of music will be taught by Ms Hopkinson in 2021. The Department also underscore the following sentence as communicating the 'evolving nature of staff allocations':

I can assure you that this information is current as of today, while it's evolving rapidly, am confident we're in a good place to start to move forward.[41]

• [49] The Department further identify the responsibility of the principal to ensure that curriculum requirements are met. They say that the K-12 Curriculum, assessment and reporting framework (CARF) necessitate certain curriculum requirements and say that changes in CARF will impact the teaching areas within schools.[42]
• [50] Ms Hopkinson also points to the email from Ms Davey (reproduced above at [14]) that confirms Ms Hopkinson was employed as a full-time music teacher. The Department say that it was later clarified in the correspondence from Ms Cathy Hay this was an error.
• [51] The Department say Ms Hopkinson has failed to explain any deficiency in the IRD and has not articulated any restriction on the ability of the Principal to determine the provision of specialist services within a school. The Department submit no industrial instruments restrict changes to the Appellant's teaching mix.[43]
• [52] Ms Hopkinson's submissions in reply state:[44]

The offer of permanent employment did not change the appellant's status

as a specialist music teacher. It is noted that since the adoption of the 2019 Department of

Education State School Teachers' Certified Agreement, any teacher including specialists, being

offered a permanent position would be recorded as general teachers. The position title

'general primary teacher' does not automatically suggest that the teacher would be

teaching general subjects. The change of job status when transitioning from temporary to

permanent employment does not imply a change in the role that is being performed. The

appellant does not believe that the deliberate purpose of this change was to remove all

protections for specialist teachers and force them to accept general teaching roles at the

convivence of local management. This being the case there is nothing in the certified

agreement that nullifies the intent of the email from HR (Appendix 3), which states that the

appellant's role is full time music teacher, and that the principal could not change the

appellant's status or fraction, but to use the appellant's specialist skills. Therefore, it is

reasonable and fair that a teacher who had a work history of music, had completed two

years as a full time music teacher at one school on annual contracts, and then continued in

the role as a full time music teacher after temporary to permanent conversion, and had

correspondence from HR confirming that the appellant was a full time music teacher, that

the appellant would continue as a full time music teacher indefinitely.

• [53] The IRD concluded that it would be 'irresponsible for the department to expend a teaching salary on the basis of one individual's desire to remain within one subject area at one school.' Ms Hopkinson contends that there was no need to reduce the music fraction to accommodate another full time STEM teacher, stating that this is not a specialist subject.
• [54] This ground of review is not directed to identifying why the stage 2 decision was unfair or unreasonable in the circumstances. Rather, it seeks to raise arguments about matters which the Commission has no scope to adjudicate.

• [55] Ms Hopkinson explains that the effects of the change of classification has been detrimental for her wellbeing, stating the quality of her work life has been adversely impacted and she is dealing with a much higher workload.[45]
• [56] The Department identify that these submissions fall outside the scope of the current review but for completeness say that the circumstances Ms Hopkinson is in (being 0.5 FTE music teacher) are not unprecedented.
• [57] The Department further submit they made offers of additional specialist teaching work by way of instrumental music duties or circuit work, which they say would have allowed Ms Hopkinson a full specialist teaching load. They point to the Certified Agreement's provision that a condition of permanent employment is that employees could be required to work at any school location within the state.[46]
• [58] In response, Ms Hopkinson points out that no 'substantial offer' of circuit work was ever made to her. Malanda State School, Ms Hopkinson says, is surrounded by small rural schools and any scope for circuit work is limited. The proposed option of a split of teaching classroom and instrumental music was refused, on advice from her union, that this would create an unreasonable workload. Ms Hopkinson also asserts that this arrangement would not have added up to 1.0 FTE.[47]

• [59] Ms Hopkinson contends she accepted the offer of 0.5 FTE - Music and 0.5 FTE - General on 6 December 2021 under duress arising from having no other choice.
• [60] The Department contend that this submission cannot be supported by the evidence for two reasons. They refer to the fact that the decision-maker at both stages of the grievance process could not locate any evidence that Ms Hopkinson was under duress when accepting the offer.
• [61] The Department also argue that the submissions of Ms Hopkinson do not provide any contemporaneous evidence supporting any duress.
• [62] The Department explained as follows:

The Appellant may be dissatisfied with any change to their timetabled classes or may feel they could hold out for a better offer; their decision to accept the offer of 6 December 2021 is not invalidated as a result. As relevantly, and accurately outlined within the Decision, the change represents an increase to the hours the Appellant was appointed an Experienced Music Teacher (Music), not a reduction. This acceptance established the Appellant's role as a 0.5 FTE specialist music teacher at Malanda SS, with the role immediately prior to that being that of Experienced Senior Teacher (General) only.[48]

• [63] I note there are no grounds of appeal related to purported procedural defects in the IRD. The decision-letter contains the required information as set out in cl 9.2(h) of the IEG Directive.
• [64] The basis for the appeal is largely a long-standing factual dispute about the circumstances of Ms Hopkinson's permanent conversion, what role she was 'actually' performing during 2021, whether she was being asked to reduce her full-time hours for 2022 and whether she was forced to accept the dual appointment in December 2021. The Appellant disagrees with the findings of fact made at Stage 1 and confirmed in the Stage 2 IRD.
• [65] The two significant events at the heart of this dispute, being permanent conversion and the dual appointment, have both occurred with the written agreement of the Appellant. Ms Hopkinson accepted conversion to permanent employment to a full-time General Teaching role. The relevant Conversion Directive at the time (Superseded Directive 09/20) stipulates a Chief Executive can only convert employment to permanent upon the acceptance of the offer from the employee.[49] Ms Hopkinson accepted the offer of permanent employment on 23 November 2020. The offer as reproduced above is as a general teacher primary - not a designated music specialist role.
• [66] It was Ms Hopkinson's assumption based on her primary duties during the school year in 2021 being as a music teacher (with the additional subjects of media arts, dance and drama) that her employment had continued and would continue as a full-time music specialist even though she had accepted permanent employment in a different role.
• [67] I agree with the conclusion in the IRD and in the submissions by the Respondent that Ms Hopkinson cannot reasonably continue to rely on the correspondence of Ms Davey on 22 November 2021 where she states Ms Hopkinson was performing a full time music teacher role, when it was clarified by the correspondence of Ms Hay shortly after on 3 December 2021 as an error and not consistent with the offer of permanent employment she had formally accepted in a general role.
• [68] I do however, agree with Ms Hopkinson that the decision-maker's view (at both stages of the IEG) of her being appointed permanently as a general teacher and immediately 'temporarily' relieving at level in 'the full-time music teacher position' is perplexing and it does suggest a position existed that was being relieved in rather than a necessity for (almost full time) music classes to be timetabled. The relieving at level claim for which it is accepted no documented evidence exists, is also argued in the alternative as Ms Hopkinson teaching classroom music but as part of her role as a full time general teacher.
• [69] While Ms Hopkinson contends these arguments only came to light in the LAD, I consider Ms Hay's letter of 3 December 2021 is making a similar point - that Ms Davey's error was made because "this was the understanding of the position you were undertaking for the 2021 school year and not an actual reflection of your permanent position title."
• [70] I do not agree Ms Hay's letter makes clear, as contended by Ms Archibald in the LAD, that Ms Hopkinson was temporarily relieving in the role of EST Music for the 2021 school year. This purported temporary relieving at level has confused the matter even further. All of Ms Hopkinson's appeal grounds reference the unsubstantiated claim that she was relieving at level in the role of full time music teacher on a temporary basis immediately following her permanent conversion from the temporary full time music teacher role.
• [71] The decision-maker in the IRD considered this claim to be a new matter as it was not raised in the original Grievance. The centrality of this notion only became clear in the LAD so it was appropriate for Ms Hopkinson to raise it as a ground for review that needed to be addressed in the IRD. In the IRD the decision-maker seeks to resolve the matter acknowledging the confusion regarding relieving at level but concludes:

For clarity, I express that it is reasonable for you to have been requested to, and subsequently engaged in, classroom music teaching as part of your employment. It is also a reasonable and lawful direction for you to participate in other areas of curriculum, relevant to your permanent role, as deemed appropriate by the relevant delegated officer. There is no requirement for your position title to be adapted on the payroll system with annual class allocations. It is incorrect for you to assert that a lawful request, within the scope of the role you are employed to perform, would mean that your original offer of permanent employment was incorrect.[50]

• [72] While I accept the decision-maker is attempting to resolve Ms Hopkinson's reasonable confusion, the explanation of her role for 2021 in the LAD and the IRD makes little sense. Ms Hopkinson had been temporarily engaged as the full-time specialist music teacher for two years when she was made a permanent offer of employment. The email from Mr Allen dealing with teaching allocations for 2021 demonstrates the intention that Ms Hopkinson would be teaching music in the 2021 school year with the caveat of the additional subjects that had already been discussed with her as part of the pre-conversion conversation.
• [73] While the 25 November 2020 email from Mr Allen is not evidence of Ms Hopkinson's permanent employment as a specialist music teacher, it is also not evidence that the classroom teaching it envisaged was part of some temporary relieving at level arrangement. If there was an ongoing need for the role to be performed, it is reasonable for Ms Hopkinson to question why she was not converted into it at that time.
• [74] The issue for Ms Hopkinson however is that this is not the administrative decision underpinning the appeal. The circumstances surrounding the conversion in 2020/2021 would not be a basis now to set aside the IRD. I conclude this for the following reasons.
• [75] The unsupported claim about relieving at level does not alter the fact that Ms Hopkinson accepted permanent conversion to a general role in 2020.[51] The documentary evidence supports this fact.
• [76] I note that in reply submissions, Ms Hopkinson makes a new argument that the relevant certified agreement provides for permanent conversion of specialists to general roles without altering their specialist status. No specific provision has been pinpointed to support this contention, and it was not before the decision-maker in the IRD. If that was indeed the case, I am surprised it was not raised at the relevant time during 2021 by Ms Hopkinson or the Union. I note in the LAD there is a reference to an email from the Union not attached to the material before me that indicates as Ms Hopkinson had accepted permanent employment to the general role, the protections afforded to specialists did not apply to her circumstances. I am not persuaded by Ms Hopkinson's submission in this regard.
• [77] I acknowledge there was no right for Ms Hopkinson to appeal the conversion decision itself in 2020, as her employment had indeed been converted and she was employed on a full-time basis.[52] However, the time to raise a grievance in relation to the role Ms Hopkinson had been permanently appointed to was when it became clear that the school was of the view that she could no longer continue to teach music (with some additional subjects) on a full time basis in 2022 and it became clear that she had in fact accepted in writing appointment on a permanent basis to a different non-specialist role.[53]
• [78] At that time, it was objectively correct that Ms Hopkinson was not permanently employed as a full-time Experienced Senior Teacher in music. It was therefore reasonable for the decision-maker to confirm that finding in the IRD.
• [79] Ms Hopkinson did not lodge a formal grievance but did raise her concerns about the status of her specialist role post conversion, with the Principal, the Union and with HR. However, it was reasonable for the Principal and HR to consider the conversion related matter had been resolved at the point Ms Hopkinson accepted a new offer of employment in the dual role she continues to occupy. The grievance in relation to the dual appointment decision was not lodged until 18 September 2024 - some two years and 9 months later.
• [80] The Appellant's submission in the present matter is that the dual role decision was made under duress. While it is clear it was not Ms Hopkinson's preferred outcome, there was no evidence before the decision-maker to support that contention of duress to the requisite standard. I consider the acceptance email from the Appellant was provided following advice from the Union underpinned by the rationale of providing her with designated employment as a music specialist albeit at just 0.5 FTE.
• [81] The email evidence provided by the Appellant also does not support the contention that the options outlined by Mr Allen to supplement her music teaching were an attempt to change her status from full time to part time. The email (reproduced in [12]) presents possible options for Ms Hopkinson to be allocated a full-time workload given her music teaching load for the following school year would only be 0.5 of her allocation. The email is also clear that the other options were for discussion.
• [82] Ultimately, as found in the IRD, the matters were resolved through Ms Hopkinson's acceptance of the dual role.
• [83] Continuing to disagree with the decision or regretting her own acceptance of the decision made is not the same as being forced to accept the decision under duress.

• [84] Employees are required to ensure that individual employee grievances are submitted as soon as reasonably possible after the administrative decision, alleged conduct or alleged behaviour has occurred. This appeal cannot reach back in time and overturn the permanent employment decision made by Ms Hopkinson in 2020. While I have found the explanation/s provided by the Department regarding Ms Hopkinson's employment arrangements in 2021 to be confused and confusing, that does not preclude the conclusions reached in the IRD being reasonably open to the decision-maker. It is the IRD that is subject to this appeal.
• [85] As outlined above, I consider the conclusion that Ms Hopkinson was not permanently employed as a full time Experienced Senior Teacher Music when she accepted the employment offer in 2020 for the 2021 school year was reasonably open to the decision-maker. Further it was reasonable to conclude that the issues arising from her permanent conversion, the subject of complaints made by Ms Hopkinson in 2021, were resolved when she accepted the new employment offer in December 2021 to secure a designated 0.5 FTE Experienced Senior Teacher role.
• [86] The conclusion to confirm the LAD as fair and reasonable in the circumstances was reasonably open to the decision-maker and should not be disturbed on appeal.
• [87] I order accordingly.

[1] Directive 11/20: Individual Employee Grievance.

[2] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 14 March 2025, [4].

[3] Submissions of the Appellant, filed 26 February 2025, 1.

[4] Submissions of the Appellant, filed 26 February 2025, 1.

[5] Submissions of the Appellant, filed 26 February 2025, [2].

[6] Submissions of the Appellant, filed 26 February 2025, Appendix 2.

[7] Submissions of the Appellant, filed 26 February 2025, 96 (Appendix 5); Email from Mark Allen on 25 November 2020.

[8] Submissions of the Appellant, filed 26 February 2025, [4].

[9] Submissions of the Appellant, filed 26 February 2025, [5].

[10] Submissions of the Appellant, filed 26 February 2025, Appendix 7

[12] Submissions of the Appellant, filed 19 March 2025, Appendix 3.

[14] Submissions of the Appellant, filed 26 February 2025, [9].

[15] Submissions of the Appellant, filed 26 February 2025, [10]; Submissions in Reply of the Appellant, filed 19 March 2025, [1].

[16] Form 89, filed 31 January 2025; Decision letter dated 6 January 2025, 2.

[17] Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 129.

[18] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 14 March 2025, [10].

[19] Section 564 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) sets out that the time limit to appeal is 21 days after the decision was given to Ms Hopkinson. While the Appeal is stamped as received on 31 January 2025, Ms Hopkinson signed the Appeal on 29 January 2025. 27 January 2025 was a public holiday. Therefore, 31 January 2025 was the 21st day following the date of receipt of decision (excluding the public holiday).

[20] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B(3).

[21] Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No. 2) [2022] QIRC 16, [25] (Merrell DP).

[23] Goodall v State of Queensland (Unreported decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018).

[24] O'Hearn v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 283, [10] (Power IC).

[25] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 14 March 2025, [21].

[26] Submissions of the Appellant, dated 26 February 2025, [12].

[27] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 14 March 2025, [32].

[28] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 14 March 2025, 7.

[29] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 14 March 2025, [35]

[30] Department of Education State School Teachers Certified Agreement 2019 cl 10.4.1.

[31] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 14 March 2025, [37]

[32] Submissions of the Appellant in reply, filed 19 March 2025, [5].

[33] Submissions of the Appellant in reply, filed 19 March 2025, [8].

[34] Submissions of the Appellant, dated 26 February 2025, [13].

[38] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 14 March 2025, [41].

[39] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 14 March 2025, [25].

[40] Submissions of the Appellant, dated 26 February 2025, Appendix 5, 97.

[41] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 14 March 2025, [41]; Submissions of the Appellant, filed 26 February 2025, Appendix 5, Email from Mark Allen on 25 November 2020.

[42] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 14 March 2025, [43].

[43] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 14 March 2025, [44].

[44] Submissions of the Appellant in reply, filed 19 March 2025, [15].

[45] Submissions of the Appellant, dated 26 February 2025, 8.

[46] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 14 March 2025, [47]; Department of Education State School Teachers' Certified Agreement 2019 cl 10.5.2.

[47] Submissions in reply of the Appellant, filed 19 March 2025, [11].

[48] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 14 March 2025, 6-7.

[49] Superseded Directive 09/20: Fixed term temporary employment cl 8.3(c).

[50] Internal review decision dated 6 January 2025, 4.

[51] Submissions of the Appellant, filed 26 February 2025, Appendix 2. See paragraph [8] of this Decision.

[52] Conversion appeals can be made about a decision not to convert employment and if part time, the offer of hours not being made in accordance with the directive. See ss 115 and 129 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld).

[53] Submissions of the Appellant in reply, filed 19 March 2025, Appendix 1, 5-6.