| [2022] FWC 1865 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v
BHP Coal Pty Ltd T/A BHP Mitsubishi Alliance
(C2021/6477)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY | BRISBANE, 18 JULY 2022 |
Alleged dispute about any matters arising under the modern award and the NES; [s146]
This Decision concerns an application by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (the CFMMEU/the Applicant) under s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) seeking that the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) deal with a dispute under the dispute resolution procedure in the BMA Enterprise Agreement 2018 (the 2018 Agreement). The Respondent is BHP Coal Pty Ltd T/A Mitsubishi Alliance (Respondent).
The dispute relates to the contested interpretation of clause 8.1(g) of the 2018 Agreement in respect of the requirement for the Respondent to provide automated haulage training.
The agreed question for determination and my answer to that question is as follows:
Question
On the proper construction of the BMA Enterprise Agreement 2018 (Agreement), does clause 8.1(g) of the Agreement require the respondent to offer training in automated haulage training module(s) to employees of the respondent to whom the Agreement applies who are required to work in the Autonomous Mining Area at Goonyella Riverside Mine before employees of OS MCAP Pty Ltd (OS) who work at Goonyella Riverside Mine undertake training in any automated haulage training module?
Answer
No.
Reasons for this Decision will issue separately.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
L Tiley of Hall Payne Lawyers for the applicant.
J McLean of Counsel instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills for the respondent.
Hearing details:
2022.
Brisbane:
March 28, April 12.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR743862>
- AGLC
- Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd T/A BHP Mitsubishi Alliance [2022] FWC 1865
- Case
- [2022] FWC 1865
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the FWC was to determine whether clause 8.1(g) of the 2018 Agreement mandated that BHP offer automated haulage training to its employees before OS employees received such training. This interpretation hinged on the wording of the clause and the context in which it was situated within the agreement. The Deputy President of the FWC, Asbury, was tasked with interpreting the clause and deciding whether the CFMMEU's interpretation was correct. The Deputy President found that the clause did not require BHP to offer training to its employees before OS employees, thereby rejecting the CFMMEU's position.
In reaching this decision, the Deputy President considered the language of clause 8.1(g) and its placement within the 2018 Agreement, as well as any relevant context that could shed light on the parties' intentions. The Deputy President found that the clause did not impose a requirement for BHP to offer training before OS employees, and thus the CFMMEU's application was unsuccessful. The Deputy President's reasons for this decision will be issued separately.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.