Conrad Hunt v Process Minerals International Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 1276

[2025] FWC 1276

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s 394—Unfair dismissal

Conrad Hunt
v

Process Minerals International Pty Ltd

(U2025/403)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT PERTH, 7 MAY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – jurisdictional objection – whether applicant covered by a modern award or enterprise agreement – whether earnings above high income threshold

1. Issues and outcome 

1. Mr Conrad Hunt (the Applicant) applied for an unfair dismissal remedy on 11 January 2025 against his former employer, Process Minerals International Pty Ltd (the Respondent).  The Respondent objected to the application on the basis that the Applicant was not a person protected from unfair dismissal because he earned more than the high-income threshold and he was not covered by a modern award or enterprise agreement.[1] 

1. This decision deals solely with the jurisdictional objection that the Applicant was not covered by a modern award.  It is uncontroversial that the Applicant’s annual rates of earnings were not less than the high income threshold, and that an enterprise agreement did not apply to the Applicant in relation to his employment with the Respondent.  Further, the modern award in question is the Professional Employees Award 2020 (PE Award),[2] the Applicant having contended that a portion of his duties as a mining superintendent required him to have engineering qualifications – and that he carried out such duties for a period more than five years.

1. It is further uncontroversial that the Applicant worked for a mining company on a mine site.  However, the Applicant did not press that he was covered by the Mining Industry Award 2020 (Mining Industry Award)[3] whilst employed.  The Applicant conceded, appropriately in my view, given his duties and responsibilities whilst working for the Respondent as a superintendent, that the coverage of the Mining Industry Award did not extend to his role.  It is well established that the Mining Industry Award does not extend to cover supervisory or managerial roles where the principal purpose of the role is not captured by the award.[4]

1. Briefly stated, I have concluded that the Applicant was not protected from unfair dismissal because the PE Award did not cover the Applicant whilst employed by the Respondent and, as already noted, the Applicant’s annual rate of earnings was not less than the high income threshold. 

1. An Order[5] issues concurrently with these reasons dismissing the Applicant’s application.

1. My detailed reasons follow. 

1. Background

1. The broader context in respect of the application has been extracted from the evidence of the Applicant, and the Respondent’s witness, Mr Chris Botha, Manager Mining at the Mount Marion mine site. 

2.1      The Applicant

1. At the time of his dismissal, the Applicant was employed by the Respondent as a superintendent mining at its Mount Marion Lithium Project at Karramindi in Western Australia.  The Applicant’s Offer of Employment – Schedule A – Commencement Conditions set out that in respect of an ‘Industrial Instrument’, that  the ‘Common law’ applied.[6]  Page 18 of the Applicant’s Offer of Employment – Schedule B noted…