‘Incompetent, careless and inefficient’ public servant gets pay cut

A Queensland public servant who had her pay cut during a disciplinary process has failed in her bid to overturn it.

The woman was downgraded from AO4 to AO3. (File picture)

A Queensland public servant who had her pay cut during a disciplinary process after she was found to have been “incompetent, careless and inefficient” in her job has failed in her bid to overturn it.

In a decision handed down last week by Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) commissioner Roslyn McLennan, Ms McLennan threw out Nancy Gillespie’s appeal against her August 2023 demotion from public service classification AO4 pay point 4 to AO3 pay point 4.

Ms Gillespie claimed that she was put on a performance improvement plan due to colleagues wanting to “vanish” her, the decision states.

She also submitted to the QIRC that her colleagues’ “hatred” for her presence in the team was the sole basis of unsatisfactory performance and that she has been bullied by a colleague.

On August 29, 2023, Ms Gillespie filed an appeal in the QIRC against the decision of Andrew Spina, the deputy director-general of service delivery and operations within the Queensland government customer and digital Group of the department of transport and main roads to cut her pay classification.

In the disciplinary action decision, Mr Spina told Ms Gillespie that she was careless, incompetent or inefficient in her duties as AO4, finance officer, general ledger and reporting, because she failed to meet her performance improvement plan (PIP) outcomes in 2021, and that he found this on the balance of probabilities.

Mr Spina concluded that she failed to correctly undertake reconciliations, complete and maintain registers, undertake accruals and end of month journals, manage open items in SAP and clear bank statement transactions and do an analytical review of open items.

In her decision, Ms McLennan ruled Ms Gillespie’s appeal could not proceed because Ms Gillespie had filed the appeal too late and had not given a good reason to be granted an extension.

Ms Gillespie works as a finance officer in general ledger and reporting, with the Department of Communities, Housing and Digital Economy, the decision states.

Ms McLennan stated that she did not need to decide whether Mr Spina’s disciplinary action decision against her was fair and reasonable because Ms Gillespie did not pass the first hurdle of filing her appeal within time.

“The arguments raised by the appellant do not sufficiently address why the disciplinary action decision was unfair or unreasonable, rather, they appear to seek to disturb the appellant’s finding that she performed her role carelessly, incompetently or inefficiently. That is not the question to be decided in this case,” Ms McLennan stated.

The decision states that Mr Spina also considered whether or not Ms Gillespie could return to her substantive position as an AO4 in the tax and assets team, however noted that numerous and reasonable opportunities to return to that role were provided which she had previously declined.

Mr Spina also considered that there were concerns regarding Ms Gillespie’s ability to perform at an AO4 classification, which was demonstrated by Ms Gillespie returning to a reduced workload/alternative duties, following the unsuccessful outcomes in the past three PIP processes and during the disciplinary process.