Re Australian Industrial Relations Commission; Ex parte Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2001] FCA 1816

Re Australian Industrial Relations Commission; Ex parte Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2001] FCA 1816

The Full Bench performed the statutory function under item 51 by determining and balancing both productivity and fairness to employees. There was no requirement to give separate notice or opportunity to be heard in relation to a 10-hour shift, as that possibility lay within the controversy addressed by the evidence and submissions. Therefore, there was no procedural unfairness or failure to properly exercise jurisdiction.

Parties
Applicant/prosecutor: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; First Respondent: A Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (Giudice J, Boulton J, Lawson C); Second Respondent: BHP Coal; Third Respondent: Bloomfield Collieries; Fourth Respondent: Bluff Mining Pty Limited; Fifth Respondent: Bulga Coal Management Limited; Sixth Respondent: Callide Coalfields Pty Limited; Seventh Respondent: Capricorn Coal Management Pty Limited; Eighth Respondent: Centennial Coal Co Limited; Ninth Respondent: Charbon Coal Pty Limited; Tenth Respondent: Coal & Allied Operations Pty Limited; Eleventh Respondent: Coal Operations Australia Limited; Twelfth Respondent: Coalpac Pty Limited; Thirteenth Respondent: Collinsville Coal Company Pty Limited; Fourteenth Respondent: Curragh Queensland Mining Limited; Fifteenth Respondent: Dartbrook Coal Pty Limited; Sixteenth Respondent: Drayton Coal Pty Limited; Seventeeth Respondent: Ensham Resources Pty Limited; Eighteenth Respondent: Jeebropilly Collieries Pty Limited; Nineteenth Respondent: Kandos No 3 Colliery; Twentieth Respondent: Lemington Coal Mines Limited; Twenty First Respondent: Leo and Green Pty Limited; Twenty Second Respondent: Mount Thorley Coal Loading Limited; Twenty Third Respondent: Mount Thorley Operations Pty Limited; Twenty Fourth Respondent: New Hope Collieries Pty Limited; Twenty Fifth Respondent: Newlands Coal Pty Limited; Twenty Sixth Respondent: North Goonyella Coal Mines Limited; Twenty Seventh Respondent: Novacoal Australia Pty Limited; Twenty Eighth Respondent: Oaky Creek Coal Pty Limited; Twenty Ninth Respondent: Pacific Coal Pty Limited; Thirtieth Respondent: Peabody - Ravensworth; Thirty First Respondent: South Blackwater Coal Limited; Thirty Second Respondent: Springvale Coal Pty Limited; Thirty Third Respondent: Stratford Coal Pty Limited; Thirty Fourth Respondent: The Wallerawang Collieries; Thirty Fifth Respondent: Ulan Coal Mines Limited; Thirty Sixth Respondent: Yarrabee Coal Company Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Writs of Prohibition, Certiorari and Mandamus / Judgment After Remittal From High Court
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Award Simplification, Industrial Awards, Natural Justice, Fairness to Employees, Productivity, Workplace Relations Act, Statutory Interpretation
Industrial Law Award Simplification Industrial Awards Natural Justice Fairness to Employees Productivity Workplace Relations Act Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

Applicant/prosecutor

A Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (Giudice J, Boulton J, Lawson C)

First Respondent

BHP Coal

Second Respondent

Bloomfield Collieries

Third Respondent

Bluff Mining Pty Limited

Fourth Respondent

Bulga Coal Management Limited

Fifth Respondent

Callide Coalfields Pty Limited

Sixth Respondent

Capricorn Coal Management Pty Limited

Seventh Respondent

Centennial Coal Co Limited

Eighth Respondent

Charbon Coal Pty Limited

Ninth Respondent

Coal & Allied Operations Pty Limited

Tenth Respondent

Coal Operations Australia Limited

Eleventh Respondent

Coalpac Pty Limited

Twelfth Respondent

Collinsville Coal Company Pty Limited

Thirteenth Respondent

Curragh Queensland Mining Limited

Fourteenth Respondent

Dartbrook Coal Pty Limited

Fifteenth Respondent

Drayton Coal Pty Limited

Sixteenth Respondent

Ensham Resources Pty Limited

Seventeeth Respondent

Jeebropilly Collieries Pty Limited

Eighteenth Respondent

Kandos No 3 Colliery

Nineteenth Respondent

Lemington Coal Mines Limited

Twentieth Respondent

Leo and Green Pty Limited

Twenty First Respondent

Mount Thorley Coal Loading Limited

Twenty Second Respondent

Mount Thorley Operations Pty Limited

Twenty Third Respondent

New Hope Collieries Pty Limited

Twenty Fourth Respondent

Newlands Coal Pty Limited

Twenty Fifth Respondent

North Goonyella Coal Mines Limited

Twenty Sixth Respondent

Novacoal Australia Pty Limited

Twenty Seventh Respondent

Oaky Creek Coal Pty Limited

Twenty Eighth Respondent

Pacific Coal Pty Limited

Twenty Ninth Respondent

Peabody - Ravensworth

Thirtieth Respondent

South Blackwater Coal Limited

Thirty First Respondent

Springvale Coal Pty Limited

Thirty Second Respondent

Stratford Coal Pty Limited

Thirty Third Respondent

The Wallerawang Collieries

Thirty Fourth Respondent

Ulan Coal Mines Limited

Thirty Fifth Respondent

Yarrabee Coal Company Pty Limited

Thirty Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Writs of Prohibition, Certiorari and Mandamus / Judgment After Remittal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Full Bench of the Commission failed to perform its statutory function under item 51 of Sch 5 to the WROLA Act
  2. 2 Whether the Full Bench denied natural justice to the CFMEU by making its decision on shift length without giving notice of the proposed outcome

Ratio Decidendi

The Full Bench performed the statutory function under item 51 by determining and balancing both productivity and fairness to employees. There was no requirement to give separate notice or opportunity to be heard in relation to a 10-hour shift, as that possibility lay within the controversy addressed by the evidence and submissions. Therefore, there was no procedural unfairness or failure to properly exercise jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • There be no order as to costs.