Bond v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) & Ors [2023] QIRC 148 (26 May 2023)
- Type of outcome
Queensland Industrial Relations Commission decision
- Year
2023
- Contravention
Discrimination
- Attribute/s
Relationship status
- Area
Work
- Outcome
Complaint dismissed
Summary
This was a complaint of discrimination and victimisation made by a woman who had been employed by the Department of Justice and Attorney-General as a Youth Conferencing Convenor in Maroochydore. During her employment the woman formed a relationship with a colleague which led to them marrying. The woman claimed that after her marriage, the relationship with her supervisor deteriorated.
This summary is confined to aspects of the decision that are relevant to the meaning of the attribute of relationship status.
Background
After an initial issue around November 2011 that the woman addressed through a detailed letter of complaint to her supervisor, she claimed that the supervisor continued to treat her less favourably over the course of the next two years because of her relationship with the colleague who she married.
In March 2014 the woman expressed an interest in acting in the supervisor’s role during a planned absence of approximately 11 days. Her application was unsuccessful, and this triggered a significant emotional and professional decline such that she ceased to work in April 2014 and did not return.
After a lengthy absence from work, an Independent Medical Examination (IME) was ultimately conducted in April 2016 and the doctor provided a qualified opinion that concluded that subject to a graduated return to work program, the woman would be able to return to work in a different office or a different department. She was directed to return to work but did not do so, and a show cause process ensued that led to her dismissal.
The woman claimed that the show cause process and her termination were acts of victimisation because of complaints that her husband raised in the show cause response letters, and that the termination of her employment was discrimination on the basis of her mental health and her relationship status.
Meaning of relationship status
The tribunal considered that authorities in Queensland have been consistent in adopting a narrow meaning to the attribute of relationship status, despite there being conflicting authorities in other jurisdictions.
The tribunal referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Re Mount Isa Mines Ltd [1996] QSC 11, where the Court said that who a person is married to is an incident of a person’s marital status and has no bearing on the attribute of marital status
as defined in the Anti-Discrimination Act. The attribute must be given its literal interpretation.
The reasoning of the Court was followed by the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal inn Sherman & Anor v Grady & Anor [2008] QADT 7 at [76]-77]. There the tribunal considered that the attribute of relationship status (relevantly to that complaint, being married) meant because of the complainant’s married state and not her choice of marital partner.
In this case, the tribunal agreed with the approach of the Supreme Court and the former Anti-Discrimination Tribunal to apply the plain language of the definition of relationship status in the Anti-Discrimination Act. The fact of to whom the woman was married was an incident of her status and not a part of it.
The tribunal found that any claim of discrimination on the basis of relationship status because of the relationship with a particular person must fail. Discrimination on the basis of relationship status is limited to the status, not the incidental fact of who a complainant is married to.
Outcome
The tribunal considered all of the claims and concluded there was no contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act in any of the claims. The complaint was dismissed in its entirety.