In Andrews v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2026] QIRC 282 (4 September 2026) the Industrial Relations Commission reviewed the decision ‘by the Chief Operating Officer of the QAS, Mr Stephen Zsombok, that four allegations against Mr Andrews were substantiated’.  The Commission upheld three allegations and dismissed one.

Issues involving Mr Andrews had a very long history.  He has been ‘the Senior Operations Supervisor position in the Cairns and Hinterland Local Ambulance Service Network since 2018’ ([5]).  Complaints about his behaviour ‘came to a head in the middle of 2020. On 24 June 2020, he was suspended’ ([6]).  The inference is that he remains suspended. 

An investigator was appointed. She looked into ’26 allegations’ and interviewed ’52 witnesses’ ([6]). Mr Andrews was interviewed in March and June 2021 ([7]).The investigator provided her report to the QAS Medical Director, Dr Rashford. He wrote to the Mr Andrews on 15 September 2023 so three years after he was suspended and two years after he was interviewed about the allegations.  The investigators report ‘transcripts of interview and the other material’ totalled 1,980 pages ([6]).  Dr Rashford’s letter indicated that QAS identified seven complaints to be dealt with by management action, two required no further action and ten were not substantiated ([8]). The allegations were reframed and Mr Andrews was invited to respond to six allegations. His response raised further issues that were subject to further investigation by Mr Zsombok, who had taken over the matter. This process produced another 375 paragraphs of report ([15]).   After that process the allegations against Mr Andrews had fallen to four.  Two allegations were dismissed as a review of Mr Andrew’s timesheets showed he was not working on the days the alleged incidents occurred. 

The remaining four allegations related to words and behaviour directed to three female colleagues in the presence of other QAS employees ([18]). Mr Zsombok found the allegations were established and ‘… that Mr Andrews had contravened clause 1.5(a) of the Code of Conduct’ ([19]). 

This clause requires employees to treat co-workers with courtesy and respect and to be appropriate in their relationships with them. He [Mr Zsombok] found the contravention serious enough to warrant disciplinary action, pursuant to section 91(1)(h) of the PS Act. Mr Zsombok provided Mr Andrews with 21 days to show cause why the proposed disciplinary action should not be taken. ([20])

Rather than respond Mr Andrews appealed to the Industrial Relations Commission arguing that all four allegations should be dismissed ([21]). At [22] Commissioner Knight set out the task for the Commission, she said (emphasis added):

This appeal is decided by reviewing the decision appealed against. It is not a rehearing. The question is whether Mr Zsombok’s decision was fair and reasonable.

Commissioner upheld the decision to find three allegations were established, but set aside the finding with respect to one of the allegations. The Commissioner said (at [24]-[26]):

Mr Andrews’ central complaint is that the four findings were not open on the evidence. He advances it in two ways. The first, is a set of general criticisms directed at the whole process. The second, is a series of criticisms directed at the reasoning for each allegation. In response, the QAS submits that Mr Zsombok worked carefully through the transcripts, explained why he preferred the witnesses he did and reached findings that were open to him.

For the reasons set out below, I find that Mr Zsombok’s conclusions in respect of Allegations B, C and F were fair and reasonable. Allegations B and F were substantiated having regard to the direct evidence of two witnesses. Mr Andrews’ criticisms of those findings are in substance, an invitation to weigh the evidence differently, which is not the role of the Commission in this Appeal.

However, Allegation E should be set aside. The only evidence that the words were said was one undated account, provided five years after the alleged event. In my view, the reasons Mr Zsombok provided for accepting the allegation, did not support the conclusion.

It is not necessary to set out the exact details of the complaints here or the Commissioner’s reasons for upholding or rejecting them.  Those interested can follow the link, above, to the judgment.  The ultimate outcome is still to be determined.  It is still open to Mr Andrews to respond to the three remaining complaints and then it will be up to QAS to determine what is the appropriate sanction.  And no doubt Mr Andrews will have appeal rights with respect to any sanction should he wish to exercise them.

My purpose in reporting this case is a) readers may wonder what happened to Mr Andrews, why hasn’t he been at work for the last six years and b) to reflect on the timeframe of yet another investigation. 

These matters ‘came to a head’ in 2020.  It’s now 2026! 26 allegations have been reduced to three. With respect to the issue of time, the Commission said (at [35]-[37]):

As to delay, it is true that four years between suspension and findings is a long time. Certainly, it would be challenging for any officer to respond to allegations reaching back to 2015. However, the principle in Reedman, is that delay of this kind is potentially prejudicial rather than prejudicial in itself. That is, unless some serious prejudice is actually shown, it does not make the decision unfair or unreasonable.

For Allegations B, C and F, which concern events between 2017 and 2020, Mr Andrews has not identified any lost witnesses, missing document or events he could no longer remember. Instead, he provided detailed accounts of each event when he was interviewed.

Mr Zsombok was also conscious of the passage of time. Where the records did not align with the period alleged, he chose not to substantiate the allegation.

(In Reedman v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2021] QIRC 140, the applicant was asked to respond, in 2020, to allegations about her ‘conduct during a period between approximately October 2015 and March 2018, though for the most part, the conduct complained of occurred between October 2015 and October 2017’ (Reedman [3]).)

These delays are unfathomable. I will not say they are ‘unreasonable’ as I cannot identify the reasons behind them, perhaps there are good reasons but without knowing them the delay is unfathomable that is ‘Difficult or impossible to understand; incomprehensible’.  QAS may be trying very hard to cross every “t” and to dot every “i” to ensure fairness to all involved, but any system that takes 4 years from suspension to presenting allegations, then another 2 to decide that three out of the original 26 have been substantiated and still not have come to a conclusion as to what should happen, whilst (I infer) paying an employee not to come to work, surely shows something is seriously wrong with the system. It’s a very rough interpretation of justice for anyone, including the women who made the complaints. ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’. 

In any event Mr Andrews has been suspended, presumably with pay for six years but that would, I infer, have made it hard to keep up his practice currency and has missed opportunities for advancement. If he keeps his job that is already a significant impact. 

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only.  It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.