State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v United Workers' Union, Industrial Union of Employees [2025] QIRC 352

Ambulance Victoria v Liquor, Hospitality Miscellaneous Union [2009] FWA 44; [2009] 187 IR 119

and Others (2000) 203 CLR 194

Jones v Dunkel (1959) HCA 8, 101 CLR 298

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

Re KDR Victoria Pty Ltd T/A Yarra Trams [2015] FWC 6282

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

State of Victoria - Department of Health and Community Services v Health Services Union of Australia Print L9810 (AIRCFB, McIntyre VP, Williams DP, Hingley C, 3 March 1995)

University of South Australia v National Tertiary Education Industry Union [2009] FWAFB 1014

Victorian Hospitals' Industrial Association v Australian Nursing Federation [2011] FWAFB 8165; (2011) 214 IR 148

Delivered ex tempore, revised from Written Submissions

• [1] The State of Queensland (Queensland Health) ('the Applicant') filed an application in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission') on Tuesday, 25 November 2025 to suspend protected industrial action proposed to be engaged in by members of the United Workers' Union ('the Respondent') at various hospitals.

• [2] The protected industrial action was to commence at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, 25 November 2025. At a hearing on 25 November 2025 the parties agreed to the application being adjourned to Friday, 28 November 2025 for hearing. The Respondent provided an undertaking to pause the protected industrial action pending the hearing and determination of the current application.

• [3] The Order is sought on the basis that the action threatens to endanger the life, personal safety or health or welfare of a part of the State's population. The population consists of patients of the Applicant who are receiving, or are proposed to receive, Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy treatment ('SBRT') for various cancer conditions.

• [4] The action being taken by the Respondent's members is protected industrial action. To suspend or terminate protected industrial action, s 241(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 ('the IR Act') states:

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;

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

• [5] By correspondence dated 18 November 2025, Mr Thomas Nordin, an Industrial Officer employed by the Respondent provided the Applicant with notice of the Respondent's intention to commence protected industrial action ('PIA') from 20 November 2025.[1] The PIA proposed in the correspondence was in the following terms:

Clarification: No Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy matching unless a Radiation Oncologist is physically present and this responsibility cannot be handed over to Radiation Therapists.[2]

• [6] The issue that falls for my determination is whether the PIA action is threatening, or would threaten to endanger the life or personal safety or health or welfare of part of the State's population identified in the application. The impact of the action must do more than merely inconvenience people, it must expose them to some danger or risk in terms of those matters identified in s 241(a) of the IR Act.[3]

• [7] In Queensland Corrective Services v Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees,[4] His Honour Vice President O'Connor cited the decision of the High Court in Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission

and Others,[5] where the Court considered a similarly worded provision in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and held as follows:

... the nature of the threat as to which a decision maker must be satisfied under section 170MW(3) of the Act, involves a measure of subjectivity or value judgment. ... a decision under section 170MW(3)(b), 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 presence of the words "significant" and "important" in s 170MW(3)(b) indicate that the decision maker must have some basis for his or her satisfaction over and above a generalised predictions as to the likely consequences of the industrial action in question.[6] (Emphasis added)

• [8] The authorities indicate 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.[7] The Applicant contends that the personal safety, health and welfare of cancer patients requiring SBRT will be affected by the proposed industrial action.

• [9] In State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) v Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees,[8] Industrial Commissioner Pidgeon noted that in deciding matters under the equivalent provision in s 424 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the Fair Work Commission has had regard to the efforts taken by the employer to mitigate the impact of the PIA and the steps they might take in doing so. Industrial Commissioner Pidgeon further observed that the availability of sufficient mitigating avenues may be a reason for the Commission to be not satisfied of the criteria and the efforts to mitigate will be weighed by the Commission.[9]

• [10] The Applicant relies upon affidavit evidence from Dr Glen Kennedy[10] and Dr Melissa Anne Eastgate.[11]

• [11] The Respondent has provided affidavit evidence from Daniel Bryant[12] and Heath Foley.[13]

• [12] I do not intend to summarise the affidavit and oral evidence in great detail. I instead intend to focus on what I consider to be the most relevant evidence that requires consideration in determining the application.

• [13] Dr Kennedy is employed by the Applicant as the Executive Director, Office of the Queensland Cancer Lead, a role in which he serves as the professional lead for cancer services in Queensland.[14] Dr Kennedy is also employed as a Senior Medical Officer in Haematology at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital ('RBWH') as well as maintaining a private medical practice in Haematology at the Mater Cancer Care Brisbane.[15]

• [14] At the commencement of his evidence Dr Kennedy made a number of oral amendments to his affidavit to correct errors within the original document. Those errors primarily related to suggestions that SBRT regimes were provided to Category P1 patients, that is, patients requiring urgent care. Dr Kennedy's affidavit with the amendents noted was marked as Exhibit 1 in the proceedings.

• [15] Dr Kennedy deposes that he has serious concerns about the proposed ban as he considers it represents a significant and potentially unsafe departure from established 'models of care' in relation to SBRT treatment.[16] Dr Kennedy confirms reading the email of Ms Kristy Frost, Director, Workforce Relations and Policy dated 19 November 2025[17] and agreeing with the safety concerns raised in that email.[18]

• [16] Dr Kennedy confirms that SBRT is typically classified as urgent falling into Category P2 - with treatment required within 14 days to avoid potential adverse effects on outcomes.[19] Dr Kennedy then deposes to enquiries made on 19 November 2025 at various hospitals regarding patients with scheduled SBRT to confirm the urgent nature of the treatment.[20]

• [17] In relation to Metro North Hospital and Health Service ('MNHHS'), Dr Kennedy deposes all SBRT from 6 November 2025 to 20 November 2025 were category P2 patients for whom a delay in starting treatment will have a potential adverse effect on outcome.[21]

• [18] Dr Kennedy deposes that a Radiation Therapist ('RT') model of care has been adopted for SBRT in Queensland pursuant to which a Radiation Oncologist ('RO') is not required to be present for the treatment.[22] He further deposes to consulting a number of resources to confirm that there is no mandatory requirement nor is it best practice for an RO to routinely be physically present.[23]

• [19] Relevant to the issue of endangerment of part of the Queensland population, Dr Kennedy deposes that he considers the protected industrial action ('PIA') poses an unacceptable and unnecessary risk to patients in the public sector because:

• SBRTs are time sensitive and delay will impact the efficacy of the treatment.[24]

• The PIA would disrupt the established RT-led model of care and present various risks including:[25]

• Delays or cancellation of SBRT for P1 and P2 patients, directly threatening the patient's health and safety.

• Where SBRT is not available in a timely manner due to the ban, other treatment methods include conventional radiation therapy or surgery. The former (that is, conventional radiation therapy) means longer treatment time, more toxicity and possibly inferior survival.[26]

• Increased pressure on ROs and requirement for ROs to be re-rostered away from their clinical duties which will delay assessment and treatment for other potential P1 and P2 patients.

• Progression of cancer or metastatic disease due to delayed treatment.

• Increased risk of complications or death for patients.

• Reduced efficacy of SBRT treatments due to delays in delivery.

• [20] Dr Eastgate is engaged as the Acting Executive Director of Cancer Care Services at RBWH and is the Executive Director, Cancer Care Stream at MNHHS.[27]

• [21] Dr Eastgate confirms the evidence of Dr Kennedy regarding the staffing levels of ROs and RTs at MNHHS.[28]

• [22] It appears that Dr Eastgate's evidence largely addresses the logistical difficulties that the PIA will cause. In summary Dr Eastgate identifies the following concerns:

• A significant increase in the workload of the ROs which will place undue strain on them and risk burnout and reduced capacity to provide quality care over time.[29]

• Disruption of RO's clinical duties, which include attending clinics where they provide critical care to patients.[30]

• Short term delays to the provision of SBRT and other critical treatments that require ROs. If the PIA continues for more than one to two weeks the delays are likely to become more significant.[31]

• Delays in the provision of cancer treatment will likely have an impact on the patients' psychological wellbeing. Delays of more than a couple of days carry the risk of adversely affecting treatment outcomes.[32]

• The PIA will adversely impact staffing scheduling arrangements.[33]

• [23] Regarding actions that the Applicant could take to mitigate the impact of the PIA, Dr Eastgate states that these are limited but may include:

• Adopting a shared care model with several doctors seeing the one patient, however, she notes this is not ideal from a continuity of care perspective.[34]

• Referring patients to other public health facilities, however she notes that the other hospitals will likely be experiencing the same issues.[35]

• Hiring more ROs, which Dr Eastgate notes is not a viable proposition.[36]

• [24] Mr Bryant is a Radiation Therapist employed by the Applicant at the RBWH and has been so employed for 27 years. He is also a delegate for the Respondent.[37]

• [25] The affidavit of Mr Bryant largely seeks to correct errors that Mr Bryant states are made in the email of Ms Foster dated 19 November 2025 which is Attachment 2 to the Application.

• [26] Mr Bryant deposes that the treatment model of having SBRT provided by an RT without an RO being present only dates from 2023. Prior to that time, a doctor had to be present for all SBRT radiotherapy treatments.[38]

• SBRT is never categorised as P1, requiring treatment within 24 hours.[39]

• The earliest a patient would be scheduled for SBRT is 2-3 days and normally treatments are booked for in between 7-10 days.[40]

• When a treatment date is booked for a patient, the doctor will need to be available within that time to assist with marking the volumes and doing the review of the final radiation plan.[41] If the doctor is not available, it is the doctor's responsibility to arrange for another doctor to fill in for them.[42]

• Category P1 treatment is emergency treatment which does not involve SBRT, with the focus on ensuring that the treatment is delivered promptly and without unnecessary delay. These treatments will continue as normal through the PIA as they are not covered by the ban on SBRT.[43]

• [28] Mr Heath Foley confirms that he is an RT employed by the Applicant since around 1995 and that he currently works at the Princess Alexandra Hospital ('the PA Hospital') and he is also a delegate of the Respondent.[44]

• [29] Mr Foley notes the PA Hospital administers the most SBRT treatment in Queensland and that this treatment constitutes 20% of their workload.[45] Mr Foley goes on to describe in detail what is involved with SBRT treatment, however, it is not necessary for this decision to summarise that evidence, however I have noted his evidence.

• [30] Mr Foley confirms that SBRT is not emergency treatment and because of the nature of the treatment it is not possible to be delivered within 24 hours anywhere in Australia. The standard is five days to prepare the plan for SBRT treatment.[46]

• All treatment appointments for SBRT are scheduled when the RO is available and on-site and the appointments must align with RO availability in case further consultation, review or issues arise.[47]

• ROs already attend for approximately the first half of each SBRT appointment to confirm and verify that the treatment is being delivered accurately, unless a prior arrangement had been made for the non-attendance of the RO.[48]

• If an RO was called to attend an appointment to verify treatment imaging, it would pose no risk to any patients because they are essentially available. If an RO was attending an emergency and had to attend a SBRT appointment, another RO would take their place.[49]

• The requirement for ROs to verify SBRT imaging will not pose any risk to patients because:

• ROs must be available at all times when SBRT is administered by the RT, to verify treatment imaging - they are not called away from other emergency work as they are always scheduled for SBRT appointments.[50]

• ROs attend SBRT appointments and verify treatment imaging already, particularly if the patient is high-risk.[51]

• There are no emergency patients because SBRT is not an emergency treatment which involves significant planning usually over a week.[52]

• SBRT cannot ordinarily be administered on successive days due to the high dose of radiation. There are no circumstances where a patient's health is endangered when SBRT scheduled for a certain day does not occur.[53]

• [32] For the Commission to make the orders sought by the Applicant it needs to be satisfied pursuant to s 241 of the IR Act that:

• The application is made by an eligible applicant;
• Protected industrial action is threatened;
• The protected industrial action threatens endangerment to life, health, or welfare.

• [33] In the preparation of these reasons I have carefully considered all of the affidavit and oral evidence of the parties and the written and oral submissions provided by both parties. All relevant material has been considered although it may not be referred to in these reasons.

The application is made by an eligible applicant

• [34] I accept that the Applicant is a negotiating party for the proposed enterprise agreement to replace the Health Practitioners and Dental Officers (Queensland Health) Certified Agreement (No 4) 2022, and is as a consequence a person mentioned in s 241(2)(a) of the IR Act.

• [35] For the reasons set out in paragraph [5] above, I am satisfied that protected industrial action has been threatened by the Respondent and the nature of the PIA is also set out in that paragraph.

Threatened endangerment to life, health, or welfare

• [36] The Applicant submits that the terms "endanger" and "welfare" are not defined terms under the IRA and are to be given their ordinary meaning: Ambulance Victoria v Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union.[54]

• [37] The Applicant further contends that the verb "endanger" means "to expose to dangers; imperil". It does not mean to actually cause harm. To endanger a person's life is to put that person's life at risk. The endangerment may or may not lead to any actual harm. The noun "welfare" means "the state of faring well; well-being".[55]

• [38] The Applicant submits that if PIA places a person's physical or mental state at risk of material detriment, or materially hinders or prevents improvements in a person's poor physical or mental state, that may qualify as PIA that threatens to endanger personal health or safety.[56] The Applicant contends that the term "welfare" is broader than "life" and "personal safety" or "welfare".

• [39] The Applicant again cites the decision of the Full Bench of Fair Work Australia in Victorian Hospitals' Industrial Association v Australian Nursing Federation[57] where the Full Bench held that PIA that delays or puts off the efficient supply of public health services has the capacity to adversely affect the welfare of at least some of the persons who require those services, and can therefore enliven the Federal equivalent of s 241(1)(a) of the IR Act.

• [40] The Applicant contends that if industrial action is taken in the form of a ban on RTs performing SBRT matching unless an RO is physically present, it will result in:

(a) ROs being called away from other duties to be physically present when SBRT matching is carried out, thereby limiting their capacity to provide treatment to patients whom they would otherwise treat if they were not called away (as a result of the PIA);

(b) SBRT matching not being carried out due to the absence of radiation oncologists, when it otherwise would be carried out in their absence, thereby leading to delays in the provision of SBRT to patients who require it; or

(c) A combination of (a) and (b).

• [41] The Respondent in its submissions notes that the Fair Work Commission (in dealing with the equivalent provision in the Fair Work Act 2009) described the circumstances for the exercise of the powers as being:

... intended to be used in exceptional circumstances and where significant harm is being caused by the action.[58]

• [42] The Respondent further submits that the Applicant has not met its onus of proof. The Respondent contends that the PIA will not endanger the life, personal safety, or health, or welfare of the population, and therefore the PIA should not be suspended or terminated.

• [43] The Respondent submits that the mere existence of a threat to safety, health or welfare is not sufficient even where it results from the industrial action; the danger must be probable, not simply a possible eventuality.[59]

• [44] The Respondent contends that there are no risks to patient safety because an RO is already required to be present at the start of the SBRT, unless otherwise agreed. It is also submitted by the Respondent that further, the RO has knowledge of scheduled patient treatment with sufficient notice, and that patient treatment is scheduled in accordance with the RO's availability as they are required to be available when requested by the RT.

• [45] It is then necessary to analyse the evidence provided by both parties to determine whether the Applicant has met its onus of proof of establishing that the PIA is threatening, or would threaten to endanger the life or personal safety or health or welfare of part of the State's population.

• [46] Dealing firstly with the evidence of Dr Kennedy, it became apparent during his cross-examination that his level of knowledge regarding the provision of SBRT and the protocols in place within Queensland hospitals for the provision of that treatment was quite limited (to be fair to him).

• [47] Dr Kennedy confirmed that his specialty was as a Haematologist and that he has limited involvement in the provision of SBRT.

• [48] One example of this was that in the affidavit originally filed in the Industrial Registry on 25 November 2025, he made a number of references to SBRT being required on an emergent basis for Category P1 patients, that is, treatment being required within 24 hours.[60]

• [49] Clearly, if this evidence was correct, it may be highly relevant to the issue to be determined by the Commission whether the PIA threatened, or would threaten, to endanger the life, personal safety or health or welfare of the patients who were to receive such emergency treatment. Instead, the Applicant ultimately largely resiled from the contention that SBRT was utilised for emergency treatment of Category P1 patients.

• [50] As noted in paragraph [14] above, Dr Kennedy amended his affidavit to remove reference to Category P1 patients receiving SBRT treatment. In my view this further confirmed that Dr Kennedy did not have an in-depth knowledge of the SBRT process.

• [51] Dr Kennedy confirmed in cross-examination that he was not aware that a Radiation Therapist may require a Radiation Oncologist to be present for any SBRT.

• [52] Dr Kennedy deposes in his affidavit to there being an 'RT led model of care for SBRT' in place in Queensland and nationally pursuant to which ROs are not required to physically present for SBR T treatment.[61] Once again, this appears to be somewhat of an over stating of the extent of the role of RTs and does not reflect what is happening in all of the hospitals providing SBRT.

• [53] Dr Kennedy's evidence to this effect was contradicted by the evidence of Mr Bryant and Mr Foley, two experienced RTs, with the former working at the RBWH and the latter at the PA Hospital. Mr Bryant in his evidence confirmed that a Queensland wide RT led SBRT model simply does not exist. He stated that the RWBH protocol of RT led provision of SBRT is only in place at the RWBH and that other Hospitals have different protocols.

• [54] Mr Bryant further confirmed that the RT led model had only been in place at RBWH since 2023 (prior to that time the process was RO led).

• [55] Mr Foley confirmed in his evidence that at least for the first two SBRT treatment sessions, that an RO would attend the session for at least the first half of the session. Mr Bryant and Mr Foley's evidence also appeared to confirm that there were different protocols for SBRT in place between the RWBH and the PA Hospital.

• [56] In response to a question from the Commission, Dr Kennedy did confirm that he considers the various risks that he deposes to in paragraph 33 of his affidavit as being probable risks rather than mere possibilities (if the PIA were to be implemented).

• [57] For this evidence to be given significant weight by the Commission, it is necessary that the surrounding evidence supports a finding that the risks identified by Dr Kennedy are genuine and a realistic outcome of the PIA. When assessing the entirety of the evidence available to the Commission, I have not been able to reach this level of satisfaction.

• [58] The evidence of both Mr Bryant and Mr Foley was to the effect that SBRT, because of the nature of the treatment involving specific targeting of high doses of radiation to a particular cancer site, involved a significant amount of planning. That planning involves the entire treatment team including the ROs and RTs.

• [59] The evidence of both Mr Bryant and Mr Foley was that when SBRT was being scheduled this was undertaken in consultation with the ROs to ensure that the ROs would be rostered on, and available when SBRT was being provided. Their evidence was consistent that the earliest period of time in which SBRT would be scheduled would be 2 to 3 days, however, the usual period of time would be 7 to 10 days.

• [60] There was some dispute between Dr Kennedy, and Mr Bryant and Mr Foley, regarding whether the RO merely had to be contactable, or whether the RO had to be physically available to attend at the request of the RT. I prefer the evidence of Mr Bryant and Mr Foley that the RO was required to be physically available and this is consistent with the scheduling of treatment occurring in consultation with the ROs.

• [61] I also accept the evidence of Mr Bryant and Mr Foley that the treatment appointment would usually be scheduled for a time when the RO was not performing other clinical duties. Whilst making that finding, I acknowledge the appropriate concession made by Mr Bryant that he could not 100% guarantee that this occurred in every case.

• [62] The parties are diametrically opposed as to the impact of the proposed PIA. The Applicant's case is very much premised on a contention that the PIA is going to markedly increase the workload of ROs, effectively taking them away from other clinical duties and placing those other patients at risk. Further, the Applicant contends that an additional impact of the PIA is that provision of SBRT for cancer patients is likely to be delayed, placing those patients at risk.

• [63] The Respondent's case is that the PIA will have a limited impact on increasing the workload of the ROs and will not create any endangerment to the life, personal safety, health, or welfare of any of the Applicant's patients.

• [64] As noted above, the evidence of Dr Eastgate in my view largely addressed the logistical difficulties that the PIA was going to cause, rather than establishing a risk of endangerment. In my view the Applicant's case is primarily premised on the evidence of Dr Kennedy.

• [65] The extent to which Dr Eastgate's evidence assisted the Applicant's case was where she also deposed to the potential risk to patients from the delay which she alleges that the PIA will give rise to. The other component of her evidence relates to the marked increase in the workload of ROs that she maintains will occur as a consequence of the PIA.

• [66] Dr Eastgate was subjected to limited cross-examination, however, she did not resile from the evidence set out in her affidavit. For the Commission to give weight to the evidence of Dr Eastgate regarding her suggested adverse outcomes from the PIA, the Commission must be satisfied on the entirety of the evidence that those outcomes are a realistic prospect.

• [67] The evidence of Mr Bryant was that at the RBWH, out of 100 patients receiving treatment by RTs per day, on average only between 5 to 8 SBRTs are administered (out of that 100). I note that SBRT is only provided within business hours and Monday to Friday. Of those 5 to 8 patients, Mr Bryant estimated that 2 to 3 would be RT led. Mr Bryant confirmed that it was only a small cohort of patients that the RTs at RBWH take responsibility for providing SBRT to. I take from this evidence that for the other patients, an RO would be in attendance for some part of the treatment.

• [68] Mr Foley estimated that the additional time that an RO would be required to attend at the Radiation Oncology Department for image matching purposes would be at the most 15 minutes in relation to each occasion. Mr Bryant indicated that for the image matching component, an RO would only be required for a couple of minutes.

• [69] Mr Bryant also confirmed that whilst the RO was waiting to perform the image matching, the RO would be able to undertake other work, whether that be administrative work, responding to emails, participating in conference calls or like work.

• [70] Mr Foley's evidence was to similar effect to that of Mr Bryant. Mr Foley confirmed that the PA Hospital administers the most SBRT in Queensland. He noted that there were 15 ROs working out of the PA Hospital and 66 Full Time Equivalent RTs working at PA Hospital.

• [71] As noted earlier in these reasons, Mr Foley's evidence was that for the initial two SBRTs the ROs at PA Hospital would attend for at least the first half of the treatment. From the third treatment on, there may be an agreement between the RT and the RO that the RTs would provide the treatments without the RO, but this was always only by agreement. Further, a RT could require the presence of an RO at any time during the SBRT.

• [72] Mr Foley confirmed that the SBRT scheduling is co-ordinated with the ROs to ensure that they were available, and if an RO was not available it was the responsibility of the RO to arrange a replacement to be available.

• [73] Mr Foley also confirmed the evidence of Mr Bryant, that whilst the RO was attending for the purpose of image matching, the RO would be able to undertake other work.

• [74] I accept the evidence of Mr Bryant and Mr Foley regarding the impact of the PIA. It will require the ROs to attend and be present for image matching, however this requirement will likely be spread across the cohort of ROs working that day. That is, I do not accept that it is likely that an RO will have to attend every image matching for SBRT. There will be some addition to the workload of the ROs, however, I accept that their presence will be required for a relatively short period of time for each occasion of image matching with the time estimate varying between a few minutes to 15 minutes.

• [75] Mr Foley estimated that if an RO was required to attend on four occasions during a day for image matching, at the most this would add one hour to their day. I note that depending on the length of time involved with the image matching, and the number of times the RO is required to attend, the additional time may be significantly less than this.

• [76] I also accept the Respondent witnesses' evidence that during the time that the RO is required to attend for image matching that the RO is able to undertake work, thereby ameliorating to some extent the impact of the requirement to attend for image matching.

• [77] In light of the above evidence I also do not accept that it is likely that the PIA is going to cause the provision of SBRT to be significantly delayed.

• [78] Both Mr Bryant and Mr Foley rejected the proposition put to them in cross-examination that the PIA was going to result in a significant increase in workload for the ROs and was likely to result in cancer patients' treatment being delayed.

• [79] Their evidence was that SBRT is regularly re-scheduled at the request of patients due to the patients having a conflict, and on other occasions due to the availability of ROs. Their evidence was that this type of delay does not adversely impact the efficacy of the SBRT.

• [80] As a result of the matters noted above I have concerns regarding how much weight can be given to the evidence of Dr Kennedy and Dr Eastgate.

• [81] By comparison, the witnesses relied upon by the Respondent, Mr Bryant and Mr Foley both impressed the Commission as being highly experienced RTs with a detailed and comprehensive knowledge of the SBRT process and relevant SBRT protocols. Both witnesses provided valuable background evidence as to the SBRT process and the likely impact of the PIA in light of the current arrangements for the provision of that treatment.

• [82] I found the evidence of the Respondents' witnesses to be reliable, coherent and consistent, both individually and collectively.

• [83] I therefore accept the evidence of Mr Bryant and Mr Foley as convincing and reliable. Where there is a conflict between the evidence of Dr Kennedy and Mr Bryant and Mr Foley, I will prefer the evidence of the latter two witnesses.

• [84] I have found the evidence of Mr Bryant and Mr Foley to be convincing regarding the likely impact of the proposed PIA.

• [85] On the evidence before the Commission I am not satisfied that the proposed PIA is going to cause the significant increase in the workload of ROs that the Applicant contends.

• [86] I note that the Applicant for forensic reasons known to itself has chosen to not present any evidence from a Radiation Oncologist about the impact of the PIA on their daily duties and workload. During the course of the hearing I questioned the Applicant's representative regarding the absence of evidence from one or more ROs, given that the Applicant's case very much rested on a contention that the PIA was going to result in a significant increase in the workload of ROs which would impact their ability to provide appropriate clinical care to patients.

• [87] The hearing was stood down to afford Mr Lake the opportunity to seek instructions on this point. When the hearing resumed, the Applicant did not provide any submissions or explanation regarding the absence of evidence from an RO about the impact of the PIA on their workload.

• [88] My expectation is that evidence from an RO would be called by the Applicant rather than the Respondent. I am also satisfied that the evidence from one or more ROs would be of great assistance to the Commission in determining the impact of the PIA on their workload. The Applicant's failure to call evidence from an RO is unexplained.

• [89] In those circumstances the Commission is entitled to draw an inference that the evidence from an RO witness would not have assisted the Applicant.[62]

• [90] At its highest, the Applicant's case in my view establishes some possibility of there being adverse consequences arising from the PIA. In reality, it is more likely that the PIA will cause some degree of inconvenience for Queensland Health and the Radiation Oncologists rather than some risk of endangerment to the Applicant's patients.

• [91] The authorities confirm that this is not sufficient to enliven s 241 of the IR Act.[63]

• [92] On the basis of the evidence before the Commission and in light of my preference for the evidence of Mr Bryant and Mr Foley, I cannot be satisfied to the required standard that the PIA threatens, or would threaten, to endanger the life, personal safety, health, or welfare of either the cohort of patients receiving SBRT, or other patients receiving other forms of radiation treatment.

• [93] In light of that finding, the application for an order to suspend or terminate the protected industrial action is dismissed.

1. The application for an Order to suspend protected industrial action is dismissed.

[1] Application filed by the Applicant on 25 November 2025 - Attachment 1, correspondence from Mr Nordin dated 18 November 2025.

[3] State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) v Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees [2019] QIRC 138, [5] per Industrial Commissioner Pidgeon.

[5] (2000) 203 CLR 194.

[6] Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission and Others (2000) 203 CLR 194, [28], per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Hayne JJ.

[7] Ambulance Victoria v Liquor, Hospitality Miscellaneous Union [2009] FWA 44; [2009] 187 IR 119, [29].

[8] [2019] QIRC 111.

[9] Ibid, [6], citing Re KDR Victoria Pty Ltd T/A Yarra Trams [2015] FWC 6282, [37] (Lee C).

[10] Exhibit 1: Affidavit of Dr Glen Kennedy filed 25 November 2025.

[11] Exhibit 3: Affidavit of Dr Melissa Eastgate, filed 25 November 2025.

[12] Exhibit 2: Affidavit of Daniel Bryant filed 26 November 2025.

[13] Exhibit 4: Affidavit of Heath Foley filed 26 November 2025.

[17] Application (n 1): Attachment 2 - Email from Ms Frost dated 19 November 2025.

[18] Affidavit of Dr Kennedy (n 10), [15].

[24] Affidavit of Dr Kennedy (n 10), [33](c).

[26] Ibid, Annexure 6: Article - Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard radiotherapy Lancet Oncology 2019: Volume 20, 494-503.

[27] Affidavit of Dr Eastgate, (n 11), [2].

[29] Affidavit of Dr Eastgate, (n 11), [19]a.

[37] Affidavit of Mr Bryant (n 12), Attachment 1, [2]-[3].

[39] Affidavit of Mr Bryant (n 38), [10].

[44] Affidavit of Mr Foley, (n 13), Annexure 1, [2]-[5].

[49] Affidavit of Mr Foley, (n 13), Annexure 1, [21].

[54] [2009] FWA 44; (2009) 187 IR 119, [32] per Kaufman SDP.

[56] Victorian Hospitals' Industrial Association v Australian Nursing Federation [2011] FWAFB 8165; (2011) 214 IR 148, [51].

[57] [2011] FWAFB 8165; (2011) 214 IR 148, [51].

[58] University of South Australia v National Tertiary Education Industry Union [2009] FWAFB 1014, [8].

[59] State of Victoria - Department of Health and Community Services v Health Services Union of Australia Print L9810 (AIRCFB, McIntyre VP, Williams DP, Hingley C, 3 March 1995), [15].

[60] Exhibit 1, [19], [22], [33]b)i., [33]e)i., [33]g)iii.

[62] Jones v Dunkel (1959) HCA 8, 101 CLR 298.

[63] Victorian Hospitals' Industrial Association v Australian Nursing Federation [2011] FWAFB 8165; (2011) 214 IR 148, [51].