The appointment of a wildlife project co-ordinator in Cairns will be revoked after the Industrial Relations Commission found the decision was not fair and reasonable due to a deficient selection process.
North Queenslander Dayna Adams challenged the Department of Environment and Science over its appointment in August 2023 of another applicant to the position of A07 Program Co-ordinator, Northern Wildlife Operations, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS).
Ms Adams appealed the decision on 15 December 2023, under Section 131 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld), on the grounds the panel did not undertake a fair, transparent and reasonable consideration of her suitability for the role, contrary to ss 44(3)(a)(b) and 45 of the Act, and clauses 4.2, 4.6, 9.1, 9.2, 9.10, 9.11(e) of the Queensland Government’s Recruitment and Selection Directive (07/23).
In a decision published on Tuesday, Industrial Commissioner McLennan ordered the position be revoked, and a Queensland Government Gazette notice be published, within one month.
The vacant position had been advertised with a closing date of 22 June 2023, though a late application from the eventual successful candidate had been accepted by the selection panel on 17 July 2023.
Three candidates, including Ms Adams, had been interviewed from the shortlist created from the 57 applicants. An appointment had been recommended on 23 August 2023 and advertised in the gazette on 24 November 2023.
Ms Adams pointed to contradictory verbal feedback she received on 18 September 2023, and to irregularities and procedural deficiencies in the recruitment process.
She also pointed to a comment allegedly made by the panel chair to the hiring manager, some time in August 2023, that “it could never be Dayna to win the process”.
Commissioner McLennan said the alleged statement was “a serious matter”, and “the cautious approach would have been not to proceed with the appointment announcement on 24 November 2023 and instead thoroughly investigate the matter. Unfortunately, the department determined to press on”.
“In my view, the process was infected by the apprehension of bias at least at the point of (the) allegation, such that the department ought to have itself determined to restart the process from the point of interviewing the three shortlisted candidates with a new selection panel,” she said.
“The PS Act and Directive requires the conduct of processes to be ‘fair and transparent’. The serious allegation made … and lack of visibility into the inquiries then made by the department resulting in ‘insufficient evidence’ to determine the allegation, have not resulted in any reasonable degree of comfort that mandatory requirement has been effected as prescribed.”
She said on that basis, the department’s decision ought to be set aside and the appeal upheld.
However, the non-adherence to mandated process timeframes also provided a basis, she said, including the forming of a selection panel after the vacancy closing date, and the publishing of the gazette notice more than 30 days after the decision.
“I do not agree that the mandatory requirements contained in the Directive claim less importance in this appeal because it pertains to a point in the process after the delegate’s approval to the successful candidate’s appointment was given,” she said.
She said the appeal was decided by assessing whether the decision was fair and reasonable, and “it was not reasonable for the department to fail to comply with the mandatory timeframes set out in the Directive”.
“In a similar vein, the appeal ground regarding the muddled commentary provided to the appellant at the feedback meeting held on 18 September 2023 is not less important because it occurred at a point in the process after the delegate’s approval to the selection recommendation was given,” she said.
Commissioner McLennan said she did not consider it unfair or unreasonable for the department to have accepted the late application, as the Directive did not prevent this.
“In my view, it is significant that acceptance of the late application occurred before the panel commenced shortlisting for interview and that all applications were provided to panel members at the same time,” she said.
She noted Ms Adams had been permanently appointed to another QPWS A07 Program Co-ordinator position within a month of the disputed decision.
“Clearly then, the appellant was considered suitable for the AO7 Program Co-ordinator role by another panel very shortly thereafter,” she said, noting it was not known whether Ms Adams still wanted to pursue the original role.
Commissioner McLennan ordered that a new selection panel be formed, and that it must not contain any member of the previous selection panel. It must also be provided with a copy of the Act and the Directive.
She also ordered that the selection process continue from the point immediately after the selection of the three shortlisted applicants for interview.
She acknowledged the impact of the orders on the successful candidate, who had been working in the role for more than a year.
“However, it remains that the selection panel’s inattention to the express requirements of the process to be undertaken will unfortunately result in a period of professional uncertainty,” she said.
“Having acknowledged the ‘human impact’ of this decision, the PS Act and Directive prescribes mandatory terms to be complied with.
“I am required to determine findings on the various appeal grounds on that basis alone.
“The new panel should receive careful instruction in the requirements of the PS Act and Directive.”
Share this article