State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services v Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees [2025] QIRC 333

Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194

Queensland Corrective Services v Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees [2019] QIRC 082

State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) v Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees [2019] QIRC 069

State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) v Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees [2019] QIRC 111

State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) v Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees [2019] QIRC 138

Mr H McDonald of Crown Law for the State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services)

Mr J Crittenden and Mr M Thomas for Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees

Delivered ex tempore (revised from transcript)

• [1] The State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) ('the Applicant') filed an application in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission on 9 November 2025 seeking an interim order for the suspension of proposed protected industrial action to be taken by Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees ('the Respondent') and the staff at the Capricornia Correctional Centre.
• [2] The Applicant was seeking injunctive relief in the form of an interim order that the protected industrial action, which involved a ban on conducting night-shift headcounts from 6:00pm on 9 November 2025, be suspended until the application is finally determined pursuant to s 241(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 ('the IR Act').
• [3] After consideration of the submissions made by the parties at an urgent hearing listed before me on 9 November 2025, I issued the interim order to suspend the proposed protected industrial action at the Capricornia Correctional Centre until the application is finally determined. It was agreed between the parties that the matter (CB/2025/132) would be heard and finally determined at a further hearing listed on 12 November 2025.
• [4] On 10 November 2025, the Applicant made a further application under s 241 of the IR Act (matter CB/2025/135) to suspend or terminate planned protected industrial action at the Woodford Correctional Centre, namely, a ban on conducting night-shift headcounts from 5:00pm on 10 November 2025.
• [5] I called an urgent mention of this matter on 10 November 2025 to ascertain from the parties whether CB/2025/132 and CB/2025/135 could be heard jointly given the similarities in both matters.
• [6] At this mention, the parties reached agreement that the proposed protected industrial action to be engaged in by the Respondent's members at the Woodford Correctional Centre would not proceed until the final determination of the application before the Commission and the Applicant, therefore, did not press its application for an interim order. The parties further agreed that the matter of CB/2025/135 could be heard jointly with the application concerning Capricornia Correctional Centre, namely CB/2025/132.
• [7] It is accepted that the proposed action to be taken by the Respondent at both the Capricornia and the Woodford Correctional Centres is protected industrial action. To suspend or terminate protected industrial action, the Commission must be satisfied that certain conditions exist as prescribed under s 241(1) of the IR Act. Section 241(1) is in the following terms:

241 Suspension or termination if life, property, health or welfare is endangered

(1) The commission must, on application by a person mentioned in subsection (2), suspend or terminate protected industrial action for a proposed bargaining instrument being engaged in, or threatened to be engaged in, if satisfied the industrial action has threatened, is threatening or would threaten -

(a) to endanger the life, personal safety or health, or welfare of the State's population or part of it; or

(b) to cause significant damage to the State's economy or an important part of it.

• [8] The Applicant submits that the Commission ought to make orders to suspend or terminate the proposed industrial action at both Correctional Centres. They state that the 'population' or 'part of' the State said to be at risk are the staff members within the respective correctional facilities and those inmates within those facilities. It is accepted by the parties that in order to decide the Application, the Commission must first determine whether it is satisfied that the protected industrial action has threatened, is threatening or would threaten to endanger the life of a part of the State's population, the personal safety or health or part of the State's population, or the welfare of a part of the State's population.
• [9] In both written and oral submissions, both parties have provided and referred to several authorities. I have considered those submissions in their entirety and the authorities to which they refer, including the cited authority of Vice President O'Connor's decision in Queensland Corrective Services v Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees [2019] QIRC 082. In those proceedings, his Honour's attention was drawn to the decision in Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission and Others [2000] 203 CLR 194 ('Coal and Allied Operations'), in which it was observed by Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Hayne JJ, while considering a similar provision under the (now-repealed) Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), that:

The nature of the threat as to which a decision maker must be satisfied under section 170 ((m)(w)) of the Act, involves a measure of subjectivity or value judgment. A decision under section 170 ((m)(w)) 3B, that industrial action is 'threatening to cause significant damage to Australian economy or an important part of it is not simply a matter of impression or valued judgement.' The decision maker must have some basis for his or her satisfaction over and above a generalised prediction as to the likely consequences of the industrial action in question.

• [10] I concur with Vice President O'Connor's conclusion that the words "would threaten to endanger" should be interpreted on the basis that they require the Applicant to demonstrate on the basis of probabilities rather than possibilities, as was similarly noted in the decision of Kaufman DP in Ambulance Victoria v Liquor, Hospitality Miscellaneous Union [2009] FWA 44; [2009] 187 IR 119.
• [11] The Applicant submits that the personal safety, health and welfare of both the prisoners and the staff members of both correctional centres will be impacted and placed at risk if the protected industrial action proceeds.
• [12] The Commission received evidence from Mr Alan Houchin (General Manager, Capricornia Correctional Centre), Mr Stuart McHaffie (General Manager of Woodford Correctional Centre).
• [13] The evidence of both Mr Houchin and Mr McHaffie broadly related to the likely impacts on the wellbeing of the prisoner population at the correctional centres, should the protected industrial action proceed as proposed. Both witnesses emphasised the importance of the conduct of nightly headcounts to minimise the risk of critical incidents occurring to, or between, prisoners, particularly in regard to the protection of prisoners with suicidal ideation, or intention to self-harm. Both witnesses also gave evidence directed towards the operational implications of the proposed industrial action, and expressed their views that the completion of headcounts by non-custodial staff is unsuitable as an alternative to their completion by custodial staff.
• [14] Mr Houchin particularly noted that his efforts to mitigate the impacts of the proposed industrial action, and allow the nightly headcounts to proceed, have to date been unsuccessful; for instance, the tactical response team or dog squad team are both unable, or unwilling, to conduct these headcounts at Capricornia Correctional Centre.
• [15] It appears to be uncontested that prisoners identified as being at risk will continue to be placed on regular observations, even in the event that headcounts do not occur. It is also uncontested that headcounts are not guaranteed to occur on a daily basis, and do not proceed when, for example, the weather does not permit them from being conducted safely, or when there are insufficient staff to conduct the headcount.
• [16] Evidence to the above effect was given by Mr Benjamin Marshall, a custodial officer at Capricornia Correctional Centre who has worked 59 night shifts at the centre over the past 12 months. Mr Marshall also gave evidence that staff are alerted to the majority of incidents occurring over the night shift by prisoners using intercoms within the unit, rather than those incidents being discovered by staff while conducting headcounts.
• [17] Mr Reece Senior, a custodial officer presently acting as a supervisor at Woodford Correctional Centre, also gave evidence at the hearing. In his current acting position, Mr Senior effectively regularly acts as a manager of the correctional centre over the night shift. Mr Senior stated that the performance of headcounts over the course of the nightshift will at best count the number of prisoners, unless those prisoners are woken up to better ascertain their wellbeing. All units are monitored with CCTV on a 24/7 basis, and at the Woodford Correctional Centre are monitored by master control. Mr Senior said that staff shortages prevent custodial officers from conducting headcounts in residential areas two to three times a week, and confirmed that observation of prisoners identified to be at-risk are always prioritised, regardless of whether headcounts are conducted.
• [18] In their written submissions, the Respondent relied on the decisions of Industrial Commissioner Pidgeon in both State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) v Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees [2019] QIRC 069, and State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) v Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees [2019] QIRC 111.
• [19] Industrial Commissioner Pidgeon noted in the former decision that the test in s 241(1) of the IR Act is a "very high bar to meet, particularly when the request is being made that people cease to take action that they're taking in a protected way." In the latter decision, Industrial Commissioner Pidgeon further notes that s 241(1)'s wording, particularly in regard to "to endanger", requires that there is a "direct relationship or a relatively high degree of causative impact in producing the danger" alleged.
• [20] The evidence presented to the Commission today satisfies me that, as phrased by Vice President O'Connor in Queensland Corrective Services v Together Queensland [2019] QIRC 082 at paragraph 12, "prisons are inherently dangerous places" where incidents "can and do occur from time to time" which are of a violent nature and present significant risks "not only to the prison population but those charged with maintaining order within the centre."
• [21] However, I am not persuaded that there is a sufficient causal link between the proposed protected industrial action occurring, and these significant risks eventuating; those risks are inherent risks one could reasonably predict may occur regardless of whether headcounts are conducted over the night shift. Given that the proposed action is not concerning the stoppage of work by custodial staff entirely, I am satisfied that this headcount not proceeding does not reduce the capacity for incidents to be responded to in a timely manner by those at the correctional centres trained to do so, namely the custodial officers. Nor does it impact the observation of identified at-risk prisoners by custodial officers, or the availability of medical interventions or care.
• [22] The test applied by the High Court of Australia in Coal and Allied Operations is that a decision maker must have some basis for his or her satisfaction over and above a generalised prediction as to the likely consequences of industrial action in question. Whilst the evidence would reach the threshold of a generalised prediction as to the likely consequences of the protected industrial action proceeding as proposed, it would not reach a point, in my view, that would satisfy the Commission as required by law. That is, there is no basis for the satisfaction over and above what might be described as in these circumstances a generalised prediction as to the likely consequences of the proposed industrial action at both Capricornia Correctional Centre, and Woodford Correctional Centre.
• [23] In that regard, I agree with the Respondent's submission that "there is no evidence which demonstrates, on the basis of probabilities rather than mere possibilities, that the planned ban on nightshift headcounts would satisfy the test set out in Coal and Allied Operations."
• [24] The evidence before the Commission in my view supports the possibility of adverse consequences, given the inherent risk of relevant incidents occurring in an environment where such incidents often occur. However, it does not support the probability of those consequences, and thus I must find that the applications should be dismissed.
• [25] I order accordingly.

1. The application in matter CB/2025/132 is dismissed; and
2. The application in matter CB/2025/135 is dismissed.