O'Grady v State of Queensland [2025] QIRC 371 | Case summary

Queensland Industrial Relations Commission|2025-12-24

PUBLIC SECTOR - EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY - PUBLIC SECTOR APPEAL - appeal against a conversion decision - where there is a jurisdictional objection - where the appeal is heard - where the appellant seeks conversion to a higher classification level - consideration of genuine operational requirements - where the decision appealed against is confirmed

Directive 03/23: Review of acting or secondment at higher classification level cl 9

Breust v Qantas Airways Ltd (1995) 149 QGIG 777

Hanson v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 68

Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344

Nicholson v Carborough Downs Coal Management Pty Ltd [2022] ICQ 034

[1] Mr Scott O'Grady ('the Appellant') is a permanent employee who is currently employed in a higher classification as a Principal Release Manager (A/A07) with the State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) ('the Respondent').

[2] Mr O'Grady has been relieving in the higher classification position since 1 June 2022. Prior to this, he was performing other higher classification duties from 15 September 2022. His employment in higher classification positions has been extended a total of 15 times.

[3] Mr O'Grady commenced employment with the Respondent in 2004 and '... has consistently worked at a high standard in all positions, including the periods of higher duties...'.[1]
[4] On 4 September 2025, Mr O'Grady made a formal request to be converted to Principal Release Manager (A/A07). On 2 October 2025, Mr O'Grady was informed by the Respondent that his request for conversion was not approved ('the decision'). It is this decision which Mr O'Grady has appealed in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission the subject of this decision.

[5] The decision is contained within the Appellant's Appeal Notice and contains the considerations of the delegate when deciding not to convert Mr O'Grady:[2]

You are not being converted to permanent employment in the higher classification and will continue your current engagement.

The reason for this decision is that it is not viable or appropriate to convert you having regard to genuine operational requirements and there is no confirmed continuing need for the role, which prevents your conversion at this time.

Additional information about the decision-making framework and your appeal rights is at the end of this letter.

Thank you for your submissions received on 4 September 2025 in relation to your request for employment on a permanent basis in the higher classification position of AO7 Principal Release Manager, Development & System Transition, Frontline & Digital Division, Queensland Police Service that you are currently acting in.

I have considered your request. My decision and response is based on the requirements section 120 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (the Act) and Review of acting or secondment to higher classification level (Directive 03/23).

You have been engaged at the higher classification level for a total of 4 years. Your engagement at this higher classification has been extended 15 times. A summary of your employment at the higher classification level is attached.

At this time, the genuine operational requirements of this entity do not support your permanent employment to the role you are currently performing as there is no confirmed continuing need for the role past 30/06/2026. The QPS is also undergoing significant organisational change as a result of the 100 Day Review, which includes the recommendation of a full review of the ICT Operating Model which may impact the future requirement of this role.

You will continue to be engaged according to the terms of your existing acting arrangement until 30th June 2026 when this position is set to end.

I have attached additional information about the decision-making framework and appeal rights at the end of this letter.

Jurisdictional matter - appeal filed one day out of time

[6] The Respondent has raised a jurisdictional objection the basis that Mr O'Grady filed his appeal one day outside of the 21-day statutory timeframe. [3]

[7] Without the provision of a compelling reason, the Respondent submits that the Appeal ought to be dismissed.[4]

[8] In reply, Mr O'Grady submits that his request for conversion was not approved on the 2 October 2025.[5] Mr O'Grady says that upon submitting his Form 89, he 'genuinely believed' that he was submitting the appeal on the 21st day after having been notified of the decision. He submits this on the basis that his error was caused as a result of his usage of a '... calculator on the time and date website'.[6]

[9] Mr O'Grady provides further reasons for his late submission. Namely that:[7]

I went through a personal relationship breakdown during this period in which me and my wife began attending relationship counselling also during this period.

On 24 October 2025, I also sent my HR-assigned contact a copy of the Higher Duties Conversion - NOT Approved Letter to confirm the correct process for submitting a Form 89. During this communication, it was not mentioned that the time period for submission had already passed.

[10] Mr O'Grady submits that on the basis of his submissions, I should consider these reasons compelling and that I exercises my discretion to hear his appeal.[8]

[11] The delay in filing the appeal was very short. I accept that Mr O'Grady was of the genuine belief that he was filing the appeal within the 21-day appeal timeframe. He actively took steps to confirm the correct process to appeal the decision. He was experiencing personal difficulties at the time. While raising an objection, the Respondent has nonetheless filed submissions addressing the appeal.

[12] Having regard to the case authorities applied when considering whether to exercise the discretion to extend time,[9] I am satisfied that it is appropriate to extend the timeframe for the appeal in this circumstance.

[13] Mr O'Grady says that since he received the decision declining to appoint him to the role at the higher classification, there have been significant changes to 'our organisational unit structure'. Mr O'Grady notes that he has no performance or merit issues. He also notes that he has been performing in the role at the higher classification since 1 June 2022.

[14] Mr O'Grady provides the following information in support of his appeal:

The Vendor Delivery Team in which I work in (sic) has expanded from two teams to three teams. I am currently in the process of setting up the third team, and one of its key deliverables is implementing an upgrade to the main QPS software, QPRIME. QPRIME is the primary database software used by all QPS officers to record activities.

The upgrade of QPRIME involves transitioning from Version 6 to Version 7. As of 23 October 2025, my team is actively planning to implement this software upgrade in the third quarter of 2026, with a potential go-live date of 8 September 2026. This project will also include a warranty period and a subsequent phase to retrofit the software across all QPS Training and Development environments, with completion expected by 25 September 2026.

This project timeline now exceeds my current end date by three months. I strongly believe this demonstrates the ongoing requirement for my role, thereby negating the reasoning provided in key point 2 of the decision.

Another role of this new team is looking at a technology road map for the Vendor Delivery Teams within Development & System Transition, this road map will again exceed my current end date. This road map will look to cover off the rest of FY25/26 & FY26/27

In addition, over the past four years, I have played a critical role in delivering most major and high-priority projects within the Vendor Delivery Teams if not all of them. I can provide a detailed list of each project and my role. I have successfully delivered all assigned deliverables during this time, consistently meeting project objectives and contributing to the success of the organisation.

[15] The Respondent notes that in considering a request for conversion to higher-level positions, the Respondent must have regard to the genuine operational requirements of the public sector entity, and the reasons for each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section in relation to the person during the person's continuous period of acting at, or secondment to, the higher classification level.[10]

[16] The Respondent notes that the Chief Executive is responsible for determining the operational requirements of the public sector entity.[11] The Respondent also notes that the management of the public sector entity is guided by a number of principles, including 'ensuring the effective, efficient and appropriate use of public resources'.[12] The Respondent submits that this principle applies to the Chief Executive when making decisions for which they are accountable.[13]

[17] The Respondent relies upon the formal consideration and implementation of the '100-day review' as a genuine operational requirement of the QPS precluding conversion of Mr O'Grady to the higher classification.[14]

[18] The Respondent explains that in March 2025, the Queensland Police Commissioner authorised a 100-day review of the QPS. The review was conducted between March and June 2025. The remit of the review was to assess how well the organisation aligns with its legislative mandate under s 2.3 of the Police Service Administration Act 1990.

[19] Amongst the four main focuses of the review was '[i]mproving organisational efficiency and leadership effectiveness'.[15] The Respondent says that this Review focus is relevant to this appeal.[16] The Respondent notes that the review concluded that 'a structural rebalancing of the organisation' is required to 'ensure that corporate functions are aligned with operational needs'.[17]

[20] Specifically, the Respondent points to Recommendation 60 of the Review: 'Redesign the QPS IT operating model, including an enterprise systems strategy and the exploration of cloud-based opportunities'.[18]

[21] The QPS submits that it is in the process of redesigning the QPS IT operating model. The Respondent says that 'to do this well, will take a period of time'.[19]

[22] The Respondent points to the reasoning of Merrell DP in Adams v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) where his Honour said:[20]

[64] In my view, the decision to transfer Senior Constable Adams is an exercise of managerial prerogative by the authorised delegate of the Commissioner. This is because it is a decision taken for the efficient and proper administration, management and functioning of the Service as determined by the delegate of the Commissioner of the Service.

[65] The approach of industrial relations tribunals in Australia in respect of the arbitration of industrial disputes involving the exercise of managerial prerogative is settled.

[66] If an employer's exercise of managerial prerogative is not prevented by statute, an award, a statutory agreement or the contract of employment, the basis for a tribunal, acting as an arbitrator of a dispute, in interfering with what would otherwise be a lawful exercise of managerial prerogative, is for the tribunal to examine all the facts and not to interfere with the right of an employer to manage its own business unless the employer is seeking from the employees something which is unjust or unreasonable.

[23] The Respondent submits that it is not unreasonable for the QPS to take a considered and methodical approach when considering the management of its business.[21]

[24] The Respondent says that it is in the process of considering a realignment of the entire QPS IT operating model. It says that work is being undertaken to assess options in relation to systems that may create efficiencies for the business. The Respondent submits that as this is the goal of the recommendation, it is likely that these efficiencies will affect the continuing need for particular positions.[22]

[25] The Respondent says that Mr O'Grady is currently acting in one of two AO7 'Principal Release Manager' positions. It says that Mr O'Grady's position is temporary, with temporary funding, while the other position is permanent and permanently occupied.[23]

[26] The Respondent says that when the business has determined its enterprise systems strategy there is a chance there will be no continuing need for the additional temporary position, and the business will just retain the permanent AO7 Principal Release Manager position to manger that area of the business. The Respondent also submits that cloud-based opportunities may also realise efficiencies such that Mr O'Grady's temporary position will no longer be required by the business.[24]

[27] The Respondent submits that it would be disingenuous for the Respondent to approve a higher-level conversion where there exists genuine doubt as to the ongoing need for the position.[25]

[28] The Respondent submits that if the Commission directs it to appoint Mr O'Grady to the to the higher-level position, it will create a scenario where the organisation is limited to in its capacity to meet its efficiencies and that this is a major government focus for the agency.[26]

[29] The Respondent says that it must be accountable, whilst ensuring the effective, efficient and appropriate use of public resources. At this point in time, the Respondent says that it cannot appoint a permanent employee to a higher-level temporary position when doubt exists as to the continued need for the role. On that basis, the Respondent says that it is not viable for the organisation to approve the conversion of Mr O'Grady to a higher-level position.[27]

[30] Mr O'Grady says that he was appointed to the higher-level role on 1 June 2022 as part of a major system upgrade to QPRIME, which is the QPS core computer system. Mr O'Grady says that the project was completed in August 2024 and that since then, there has been a continuing need for his role to continue, with his position most recently extended until June 2026.[28]

[31] Mr O'Grady says that he is responsible for the release and testing of all major updates to QPRIME and for managing a team working on the QCAD tech refresh (the 000 software used by the QPS), which he says involves upgrading QCAD to updated operating systems.[29]

[32] Mr O'Grady submits that QPRIME has approximately seven years remaining on its contract, and that quarterly releases and version updates are regularly performed to remain aligned with the vendor's updates. Mr O'Grady says that QCAD is currently at the end of its lifecycle with no immediate plan to replace this software before the Brisbane Olympics. Mr O'Grady says that there is no current QPS ICTR Roadmap for either QPRIME or QCAD, and both have no known end date.[30]

Response to submissions addressing the 100-day review

[33] Mr O'Grady notes the Respondent's submissions about the consideration and implementation of the 100-day review but says that he strongly believes that there is a genuine on-going need for his role, which is says is vital for frontline officer safety and the community. Mr O'Grady says that this has not been adequately considered by the Respondent.[31]

[34] Mr O'Grady says that during the review period, he has not received any correspondence indicating that he is an employee who will be impacted by this future workforce change. Mr O'Grady submits that the Respondent's argument is 'solely based on hypothetical scenarios or assumptions, with a lack of regard for the continuing need for' his role. As an example, Mr O'Grady says that while the Respondent suggests that cloud-based opportunities may be explored, there are no current plans to replace QPRIME or QCAD prior to the end date of his current acting period.[32]

[35] Mr O'Grady acknowledges that there are two positions within the area with the title 'Principal Release Manager'. However, Mr O'Grady says that these two positions manage separate teams, each focusing on 'distinct deliverables and QPS systems'. Mr O'Grady says that his role is different from the other permanent role.[33]

[36] Mr O'Grady says that the operational requirement the Respondent says existed at the time of his review was not an immediate barrier to his conversion to permanent employment, given the likelihood of the role being continuously required.[34]

[37] Mr O'Grady mentions the case of Wilcox v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2024] QIRC 027 where he says it was found that 'solely hypothetical events' were not genuine operational requirements which were barriers to his conversion.[35]

[38] Mr O'Grady says that the QPS will be required to upgrade QPRIME from Version 6 to Version 7, as it is critical for QPS to maintain the most current version available from the vendor.[36] Mr O'Grady says that failure to maintain the vendor's versions would limit the number of changes the vendor could provide to the QPS, potentially leaving it unable to implement necessary legislative changes to QPRIME.

[39] Mr O'Grady says that in the past, not upgrading versions in a reasonable timeframe has led to a backlog of changes and fixes required after a version upgrade. Mr O'Grady says that he is currently developing a testing and release plan for the QPS to upgrade to Version 7 of QPRIME, which he says is likely to occur around

September 2026, with potential 'emergency future release following its completion.'[37]

[40] Mr O'Grady says that prerequisite work has already commenced and that his team is working to upgrade systems. Mr O'Grady says he expects that his relieving role will likely be extended again to maintain continuity during the period. Mr O'Grady describes other work he is undertaking and says that the other Principal Release Manager who holds the permanent position does not have the knowledge or experience that he has with QPRIME and its complexity.[38]

[41] The Respondent clarifies that the relevant team is comprised of one Director (SO), one Manager (A08) and two Principal Release Managers (AO7), one of which is Mr O'Grady. The Respondent confirms that Mr O'Grady supervises a team of five staff and the other Principal Release Manager supervises a team of nine staff.[39]

[42] The Respondent reiterates that the QPS IT operating model is currently being realigned and there is a chance that there will be no continuing need for the higher-level duties position Mr O'Grady has been performing. The Respondent repeats that this is due to the current implementation of the 100-day review.[40]

[43] In addition to its mention of Recommendation 60 in its original submissions, the Respondent also cites Recommendations 50 and 56 which are respectively: 'Establish a locally led, centrally supported frontline support model' and 'Undertake holistic review of approved growth, vacant positions and impacted members across the organisation'.[41] The Respondent says that these recommendations provide evidence of the organisational wide restructuring that is currently underway. The Respondent draws my attention to communication from the Deputy Commissioner dated 13 November 2025. Relevantly, I note that this communication states:[42]

We are reviewing the QPS workforce and rebalancing positions across the organisation to ensure alignment with operational priorities and an enhanced frontline.

This work is a key part of the 100-Day Review and directly supports Recommendation 56, which will review growth positions, vacancies, surplus roles and impacted persons, with a focus on returning resources to the frontline and ceasing non-core functions.

The intent is to ensure our resources are tasked and managed as closely as possible to where the services are delivered and have an impact.

This will be a staged process with the priority being the release of vacant positions to frontline regional areas as soon as possible.

All growth and vacant positions are being reviewed to determine whether they should be filled, repurposed, or reallocated.
Sworn officer vacancies are being considered from reallocation to frontline roles where appropriate.
Staff member vacancies are being assessed for potential repurposing to support frontline operations.
Positions approved but not yet established are on hold pending review outcomes.
Vacancies in areas affected by the organisational restructure will only proceed with Senior Executive Leadership Team (SELT) approval.

[44] The Respondent again refers to Adams and says that while acknowledging that this is an appeal and not a dispute, the same logic applies. The Respondent says that it is the employer's prerogative to organisationally restructure to ensure proper and efficient management of the QPS. The Respondent says that is not acting in an unjust or unreasonable manner in making the decision for Mr O'Grady not to be converted to permanent employment status.[43]

[45] The Respondent says that the QPS Government Commitments and the Minister for Police's Ministerial Charter letter give rise to a commitment to 'continue to bolster police resources to ensure Police Officers can undertake proactive policing duties to prevent crime across Queensland'. The Respondent says that due to other fiscal and human constraints, the best opportunity to do this is to streamline services and then return the resulting surplus positions and funding to the frontline.[44]

[46] The Respondent says that as there is a dual line of management in existence in this area of the QPS, it could be determined that rather than having two Principal Release Managers separately managing small cohorts of staff, instead having one manager managing the cohort all together would be a more efficient use of resources.[45] The Respondent says that just because there are currently two Principal Release Managers does not mean that this must continue to be the case. The Respondent says that if this decision is made, a position and its associated funding would be returned to the frontline, as per the agency's commitments.[46]

[47] The Respondent acknowledges Mr O'Grady's submission that the above is a hypothetical scenario, however it says that this is the case for all scenarios until the delegate makes a final decision. Until that point, the Respondent says that it has a managerial prerogative to consider what structure changes should be made and the rationale for those changes.[47]

[48] I understand that Mr O'Grady believes there is ongoing work to be done and that there will be a requirement for him to undertake a range of duties beyond the end of his higher classification appointment in June 2026. I accept that Mr O'Grady has been successfully performing in higher classification roles since 1 June 2022.

[49] There is clear evidence that a '100-day review' of the QPS was undertaken between March and June 2025. I accept that the review included a focus on improving organisational efficiency and leadership effectiveness. I accept the submission that Recommendation 60 of the review specifically refers to redesigning the QPS IT operating model.

[50] While Mr O'Grady may strongly believe that there is a genuine ongoing need for his role, this is not matter for Mr O'Grady to decide. Decisions about the future state of the QPS IT operating model are a matter for the Chief Executive, subject to any requirement for consultation with employees. Mr O'Grady may not have received notification that he is an employee who will be impacted by any future workforce change. However, if he were appointed to a higher classification role which may not be carried forward in a new model, he may well become such an employee. As the Respondent acknowledges, it would be disingenuous to appoint Mr O'Grady to a role which may no longer exist after the implementation of recommendations of the review.

[51] I accept that there are various projects or upgrades which are either underway or may be required in the future. While these upgrades may be necessary to maintain QPS services and to support frontline staff, I am not satisfied that the temporary higher classification position Mr O'Grady is currently performing is an essential position to enable the delivery of those services and upgrades. It may be that the redesign recommended by the 100-day review results in Mr O'Grady's current temporary position being made permanent, however it is also possible that the temporary position will not be continued and that Mr O'Grady will be returned to his substantive role.

[52] While the employment of public sector employees is guided by the principle that 'employment on a permanent basis is the default basis of employment',[48] it is also the case that this must be done while 'ensuring effectiveness and efficiency while maintaining a focus on the future'.[49] In making the decision, the decision-maker was required to have regard to the genuine operational requirements of the public sector entity.[50] At the time the decision-maker was considering Mr O'Grady's request for appointment to the higher classification decision, consideration was being given to the implementation of the recommendations arising from the 100-day review. Against a backdrop of such uncertainty, it was fair and reasonable for the decision-maker to determine that operational requirements preclude Mr O'Grady's permanent appointment to the position.

[53] I note that the redesign of the IT model is underway, and consequently, there is a real possibility that that the temporary position Mr O'Grady is occupying will cease to exist. As recently as 13 November 2025, the Deputy Commissioner of the QPS wrote to employees to explain that a review of the QPS workforce and a rebalancing of positions was being undertaken. That same communication goes on to say that positions approved but not yet established are on hold pending review outcomes. While it is possible that Mr O'Grady's role will continue, it is also entirely possible that it will not. I do not accept Mr O'Grady's submission that the Respondent's decision was made on the basis of 'solely hypothetical events'.

[54] The Respondent argues that it has denied Mr O'Grady's request for conversion to the higher classification position based on genuine operational requirements. The decision-maker clearly refers to the organisational change occurring as a result of the '100-day Review'. I accept that the Respondent has demonstrated that there are genuine operational requirements which preclude Mr O'Grady's appointment to the position.

[55] I find that it is fair and reasonable for the Respondent to determine that it is not appropriate to appoint Mr O'Grady permanently to that role at this time.

[56] Accordingly, I make the following order:

Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision appealed against is confirmed.

[1] Respondent's submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 10 November 2025, [2].

[2] Appeal Notice filed in the Industrial Registry on 24 October 2025, decision letter.

[3] Respondent's submissions (n 1) [9] citing s 564 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld).

[5] Appellant's submissions in reply filed in the Industrial Registry on 24 November 2025, [10].

[9] Breust v Qantas Airways Ltd (1995) 149 QGIG 777; Hanson v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 68, [9]; Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344; Nicholson v Carborough Downs Coal Management Pty Ltd [2022] ICQ 034, [38].

[13] Respondent's submissions (n 1) [22].

[20] [2020] QIRC 110 ('Adams').

[21] Respondent's submissions (n 1) [31].

[28] Appellant's submissions in reply (n 5) [3]-[4].

[39] Respondent's submissions in reply filed in the Industrial Registry on 1 December 2025 [2].

Service Administration Act 1990

O'Grady v State of Queensland

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (106 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (1)