Can you contest a colleague’s promotion? A TAFE employee tried

An employee within TAFE Queensland’s business development and marketing department appealed a decision to promote someone else into a position she also applied, but was not shortlisted, for.

The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) dismissed an appeal brought by an employee who alleged TAFE Queensland failed to follow a “fair and transparent selection” process when it promoted someone else into a role she applied for.

In September 2023, following a consultation into workplace changes, TAFE decided to remove two AO8 positions – including one held by the employee – and consolidate them into one permanent position.

The employee applied for the new position but was not shortlisted.

Her allegation of an unfair selection process broadly related to who made up the selection panel, the shortlisting and interview process, how the successful applicant was selected, the decision-making requirements, and the feedback given to unsuccessful applicants.

On the former, the employee said her direct manager was part of the selection panel and so “bias is likely present”, but she allegedly did not disclose “all actual, potential or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest between herself and the applicant”.

However, commissioner Christopher Gazenbeek said the direct manager did declare her professional relationships with several of the applicants, including the employee and the successful candidate.

Further, the employee did not provide any evidence to suggest the direct manager held a “negative view” of her that would influence her decision making, “much less that [the direct manager] embarked on this restructuring process because she held a negative view”.

“Allegations of bias or a conflict of interest should not be made lightly and ought to be supported with cogent and persuasive evidence.

“Based on the material before me, however, there is no evidence that the selection panel was deficient, was biased against the applicant, or included a member that failed to declare a relevant conflict of interest,” Gazenbeek said in his recent decision.

The employee added that the overall shortlisting process was deficient because of the assumption that the direct manager allegedly “identified her list of top-scoring candidates and brought those to the group”.

Much like the conflict allegation, Gazenbeek said the employee failed to produce evidence in support of the “mere assumption”.

On a claim the decision lacked “adequate justification or explanation for the outcome”, Gazenbeek said it was “curious” in circumstances where the employee was provided written and oral feedback.

“It is clear that the appellant does not agree with the panel feedback she was provided,” Gazenbeek said.

“However, that the feedback provided was not well-received by the appellant, does not alone make that feedback unfair or unreasonable.

“Further, disagreement is not sufficient to demonstrate a deficiency in the process of recruitment and selection.”

The employee also alleged a lack of support for employees impacted by the workplace change, and a lack of justification for the decision, but the QIRC was unable to address these submissions.

Gazenbeek said that given the employee returned to a permanent AO6 position, she was not an “affected employee” and could not be considered “displaced from a substantive role, nor has she been unable to be substantively allocated to a role”.