Mackay hospital staffer’s anti-Covid vaccine suspension appeal rejected

An Industrial Relations Commissioner has slammed a regional hospital staffer’s attempt to overturn her suspension for failing to comply with the Covid-19 mandate as a waste of time.

An Industrial Relations Commissioner has slammed a Mackay hospital staffer’s attempt to overturn her suspension after failing to comply with the Covid-19 mandate.

In rejecting hearing the woman’s second appeal bid as a waste of time, the commissioner described the woman’s arguments as “patently wrong”.

Stacy Elliott, who is a Mackay Hospital and Health Service medical typist, failed to receive her second vaccination and as a result was suspended on full pay and issued a show cause notice why she should not be suspended without pay.

She appealed the move in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, arguing there were no grounds as she worked from home and was not required to go into a healthcare facility and as such did not pose a health risk to colleagues, patients or family members.

Stacy Elliott is a Mackay Hospital and Health Service medical typist and failed to receive her second vaccination.

She had tried to obtain a vaccination exemption on medical grounds but failed to provide evidence showing a medical contraindication to the Covid-19 vaccine and as such was refused.

In March 2022, her appeal was rejected.

Ms Elliott was in the process of appealing this decision when it came to light the hospital sent her a letter of termination dated May 31, 2022.

“The decision to terminate Ms Elliott’s employment while she had an active public service appeal, and when the department had just informed the commission they would participate in a hearing of that appeal, was undoubtedly a feature of either (at best) incompetence or (at worst) misleading conduct by the department,” Industrial Commissioner John Dwyer said in a recent judgment.

However on June 24, 2022 MHHS revoked her termination and she returned to her pre-termination status of suspension without pay.

Ms Elliott tried to obtain a vaccination on medical grounds but was rejected.

In her second bid before the QIRC, Ms Elliott argued she was denied “procedural fairness”, the vaccine requirements were not a valid part of her contract, the mandate “imposes undue pressure, coercion and manipulation” and mandates were starting to be ceased in other jurisdictions.

The department argued Ms Elliott did not have a reasonable excuse for non-compliance with the directive and “vaccine hesitancy or personal preference not to receive a Covid-19 vaccine is not an exceptional circumstance and does not result in compliance with the directive being unreasonable”.

In a 12-page decision, Mr Dwyer highlighted that the Commission had “now dealt with a great many appeals of this nature” and as a result there was “a reliable body of jurisprudence”.

“It is more than apparent that the vast majority of such appellants have no regard for the reported decisions or if they do, they simply press on, expecting that somehow the outcome will be different in their case,” Mr Dwyer said.

Ms Elliott argued she was denied “procedural fairness”.

“The continued use of the commission’s resources to receive and repeatedly dispense with the same arguments cannot be in the public interest.

“In circumstances where there is now a reliable body of decisions dispensing with similar arguments, it is my view that appellants seeking to reagitate settled arguments should be required to justify why they ought to be heard.”

Mr Dwyer said all Ms Elliott’s arguments were “patently wrong”.

“Ms Elliott appears adept at researching information that she considers helpful to her arguments however, none of it is,” he said.

“Assertions about coercion are misconceived. References to federal legislation are irrelevant. Arguments relying on the HR Act are incomplete.”

Mr Dwyer also found as an employee of the department, Ms Elliott was subject to any “reasonable and lawful direction” and her expectation of working from home indefinitely and without exception was “misconceived”.

He found the appeal was founded on grounds “extensively deal with” and “consistently rejected” or “misconceived”.

“I decline to hear her appeal,” Mr Dwyer said.