Procedural fairness lessons from Quinn v Overland and United Firefighters' Union of Australia v Fire Rescue Victoria

When can an employer suspend an employee from duty pending investigation, and what procedural fairness requirements must be considered before doing so?

Date:
22 Oct 2026

The power to suspend an employee is an important tool available to employers when allegations of misconduct arise. Suspension may be necessary to preserve the integrity of an investigation, mitigate workplace risks, or maintain public confidence in an organisation. However, the exercise of that power must be balanced against the requirements of procedural fairness.

While there is authority to support the position that a paid suspension does not necessarily require an employee to be given a right of reply before the suspension occurs,1 employers must ensure that there is a proper basis for the suspension and that procedural fairness is afforded throughout the investigation process.

The decisions in Quinn v Overland [2010] FCA 799(opens in a new window) and United Firefighters' Union of Australia v Fire Rescue Australia [2025] FWCFB 177(opens in a new window) provide useful guidance on how suspension decisions should be approached in the Victorian public sector.

Quinn v Overland [2010] FCA 799

Overview

After being suspended for over seven months pending an investigation into alleged misconduct, the Applicant, Catherine Quinn, made an application to the Federal Court of Australia for an interlocutory injunction to prevent Victoria Police (her employer) from suspending her from duty.

The Federal Court granted Ms Quinn interim relief, allowing her to resume work while the alleged misconduct was being investigated.

The facts

  • Ms Quinn was the Manager of the Drug and Alcohol Branch of the Victoria Police Forensic Services Centre.
  • On 10 December 2009, Ms Quinn was suspended from duty as a result of the report prepared by the Victorian Ombudsman to parliament which identified systemic failures in the handling, storage and destruction of drug exhibits at the unit managed by Ms Quinn (Ombudsman's Report).
  • Ms Quinn was provided with a letter which, among other things, notified her that serious issues had arisen from the findings of the Ombudsman's Report, directed her not to attend Victoria Police premises, or to discuss matters relating to the drug exhibit management with other employees.
  • Although the letter stated that Ms Quinn would be afforded procedural fairness and an opportunity to respond to any allegations put to her, it did not contain any specific allegations
  • On 15 December 2009, five days later, Victoria Police provided Ms Quinn five broad allegations of misconduct.

The suspension and investigation process

Ms Quinn was suspended from duty between 10 December 2009 to 14 July 2010 which was caused by, among other things, the delays in the investigation process undertaken by Victoria Police.

This included the following:

  • Over several months, Ms Quinn's solicitors repeatedly sought details of the allegations and the proposed investigation process. Although Victoria Police indicated particulars would be provided, those assurances were repeatedly delayed.
  • On 5 March 2010, Victoria Police advised Ms Quinn in a letter that certain allegations had been substantiated and that termination of her employment was being considered (5 March 2010 Letter).
  • Procedural deficiencies were identified in the investigation process, including:
    • the undisclosed involvement of two investigators
    • confusion about the allegations under investigation and the findings reached
    • inconsistent conclusions between the investigators.
  • As a result, the findings relied upon in the 5 March 2010 Letter did not align with the investigators' reports. The process was ultimately restarted, the 5 March 2010 Letter was withdrawn, and a new investigator was appointed to develop fresh allegations.
  • On 12 July 2010, more than seven months after her initial suspension, the new investigator provided Ms Quinn with detailed particulars of the allegations and the relevant material and sources relied upon (the Particulars Annexure).
  • On 14 July 2010, Victoria Police decided to suspend her from duty on full pay, and direct her not to enter Victoria Police premises or communicate with Victoria Police employees. Victoria Police conceded that this constituted a new suspension decision.

Obligations

An issue before the Court was whether there was a serious question to be tried that Victoria Police had complied with its statutory obligations under the Public Administration Act 2004 (Vic) (PA Act) regarding fairness and reasonableness, particularly:

  • Section 8 of the PA Act, which requires employment processes that ensure employees are treated fairly and reasonably
  • Section 20(3) of the PA Act, which requires public sector employment powers to be exercised consistently with public sector employment principles.

Key findings

On the facts, the Court held that it was 'seriously arguable' that Ms Quinn's first suspension between 10 December 2009 and 14 July 2010 had been invalid.

In addition, the Court determined that Ms Quinn was not 'treated fairly and reasonably' when she was suspended on and from 14 July 2010, and that it was satisfied that Victoria Police had failed to afford her the right to be heard prior to making its final decision to suspend her.

Deficiencies in the investigation process

The Court was highly critical of the first two investigations, describing them as little more than 'desk top review[s]' of the Ombudsman's Report. The investigations were also conducted in secret, as Ms Quinn was unaware that two investigators had investigated allegations against her, and adverse findings were made without her knowledge or with any opportunity to respond.

Lack of proper basis for first suspension

The Court emphasised that allegations must be sufficiently particularised to identify the conduct in question, both to support a suspension decision and to enable an employee to respond. However, evidence showed that Victoria Police had little understanding of the specific allegations it intended to pursue until 12 July 2010, when the new investigator produced the Particulars Annexure. The Court found that this undermined the original suspension decision, which was later abandoned and replaced by a second suspension based on substantially different allegations.

The second suspension decision

The Court found that the decision to suspend Ms Quinn on and from 14 July 2010 had arguably been exercised without due regard to the following:

  • Ms Quinn had already been suspended for over seven months in circumstances where her prior suspension was arguably invalid.
  • The investigation had been subject to lengthy and largely unexplained delays, despite the allegations arising from a limited number of sources and being capable of being identified earlier.

The Court also held that the second suspension had adverse consequences on Ms Quinn, including to her reputation, career prospects and ability to perform her professional role.

United Firefighters' Union of Australia v Fire Rescue Victoria [2025] FWCFB 177

Overview

In this case, the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission (Commission) considered whether an employer had failed to afford two employees natural justice when the decision to continue their suspension was made.

The facts

  • Ms Vicky Pyliotis and Mr Stephan Trakas (the Employees) were employees of Fire Rescue Victoria (FRV) who were identified in a Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) report published on 25 September 2024.
  • The report concerned unauthorised access to and disclosure of information by the Employees, with the alleged conduct occurring between 2018 and 2019.
  • On 1 October 2024, the Fire Rescue Commissioner, Mr Gavin Freeman, suspended both Employees from duty on full pay. He stated that their conduct may amount to misconduct and directed them not to work, attend FRV premises, access FRV systems, or communicate with FRV employees.
  • On 10 October 2024, FRV commenced a misconduct investigation. The United Firefighters' Union (UFU) subsequently challenged the suspensions alleging, among other things, that the Employees had not been given an opportunity to respond and that Mr Freeman was affected by apprehended bias.
  • On 24 October 2024, Mr Freeman withdrew the original suspensions. However, he simultaneously directed the Employees to remain absent from work, stay away from FRV premises and systems, and refrain from communicating with employees while he considered whether they should be suspended again.
  • On 27 November 2024, Mr Freeman decided to suspend both employees on full pay, subject to four weekly reviews.

Procedural fairness obligations

The central issue was whether Mr Freeman's involvement in the suspension decisions gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Clause 86 of the Fire Rescue Victoria (Former MFB) Corporate & Technical Employees Agreement 2017 (the Agreement) set out the relevant misconduct process. Clause 86.5 of the Agreement required the misconduct process to comply with procedural fairness and natural justice.

The Employees contended that Mr Freeman's involvement amounted to apprehended bias, which was in breach of clause 86.5 of the Agreement.

Key findings

The Full Bench held that a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that Mr Freeman might not bring an impartial mind to the later decision to suspend the Employees, given:

  • his involvement in the original suspension decision
  • his unequivocal earlier view that the first suspension was appropriate
  • the fact that, although he subsequently withdrew the suspensions and invited submissions on his provisional view that suspension remained appropriate, he simultaneously defended FRV's conduct and rejected the Employees' grievances in terms that suggested he had not approached the matter with an open mind
  • his imposition of lawful and reasonable directions following the withdrawal of the initial suspension decision were 'in practice indistinguishable' from the effect of the previous suspension from duty.

As a result, the Full Bench agreed with the Employees that FRV's decision to suspend both Employees involved a failure to afford procedural fairness and was in breach of clause 86.5 of the Agreement.

Key takeaways

Both cases reinforce the importance of ensuring that any decision to suspend is supported by a proper and valid basis, and that procedural fairness must observed throughout an investigation process. Employers should also:

  • comply with any suspension processes stipulated in applicable enterprise agreements and/or workplace policies
  • be mindful that a paid suspension does not, in and of itself, remove the obligation to act fairly
  • ensure that allegations supporting a suspension decision are clearly identified and sufficiently particularised without compromising the investigation, so that the employee understands the case they are required to answer
  • ensure suspension decisions are made by decision makers who are free from actual or apprehended bias, particularly where they have previously expressed a view about the appropriate disciplinary outcome
  • once an employee has been suspended, conduct investigations promptly and efficiently, avoiding lengthy or unexplained delays
  • regularly review ongoing suspensions, particularly where the investigation is delayed, the allegations change, or new information emerges.

This article was prepared with the assistance of Nisha Udayakumar (Law Graduate).

Contact details

Jenny Nguyen
Senior Solicitor
Jenny.Nguyen@vgso.vic.gov.au

Updated

Back to top