DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution

Griffin Coal Mining Company Pty Ltd
v
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(C2015/1945) and (C2015/2187)

and
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
v
Griffin Coal Mining Company Pty Ltd
(C2015/1955)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 9 JULY 2015

Application for an order requiring production of documents.

[1] The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) have made application for the commission to make orders requiring Griffin Coal Mining Company Pty Ltd (Griffin) to produce documents as set out below.

“1. A copy of any plan of Griffin Coal which contains proposed mine development and coal production and that has been furnished on the relevant Minister in accordance with clause 14 of the Schedule to the Collie Coal (Griffin) Agreement Act 1979 since Lanco Infratech Limited acquired 100 per cent of the shares of Griffin Coal on 28 February 2011.

2. A copy of any proposal, or additional proposal, for the exploration and development of the coal resources contained in the company’s Coal Mining Leases that contains details of total tonneage of coal which the Company proposes to mine which has been provided to the relevant Minister in accordance with clause 9 or clause 10 of the Schedule to the Collie Coal (Griffin) Agreement Act 1979 since Lanco Infratech Limited acquired 100 per cent of the shares of Griffin Coal on 28 February 2011.

3. A copy of the contracts, and the variation to those contracts, referred to by Mr Raj Kumar Roy in his witness statement dated 22 May 2015 at paragraphs [10] to [16].

4. A copy of any documents containing a supply quantity nominated by a domestic customer of Griffin Coal for any period within the period from 22 May 2015 to 30 June 2016.

5. For the purposes of this order “document” or “documents” is to be given a meaning consistent with the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) to mean any record of information, and includes:

(a) anything on which there is writing; or

(b) anything on which there are marks, figures, symbols or perforations having a meaning for persons qualified to interpret them; or

(c) anything from which sounds, images or writings can be reproduced with or without the aid of anything else; or

(d) a map, plan, drawing or photograph.”

[2] Griffin opposes the Commission making any such orders.

[3] Having considered the submissions of the parties on this application I have decided that I will not make orders with respect to documents falling within the categories 1 and 2 above. I am not satisfied that such documents are sufficiently relevant to the matters to be determined in these substantive applications.

[4] I will make orders requiring the production of documents falling within the categories 3 and 4 above. Considering the evidence of Griffin’s witnesses refers to various domestic contracts for the supply of coal and the quantities Griffin is obliged to send to these customers and refers to the price paid to Griffin per tonne of coal supplied I am satisfied such documents are sufficiently relevant to the matters to be determined in these applications that they should be produced.

[5] Noting the concerns raised by Griffin in opposition to any orders for the production of these documents their production will be subject to some constraints.

[6] An order reflecting this decision will now be made.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Griffin Coal Mining Company Pty Ltd applied for an order requiring the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union to produce documents relevant to the proceedings. The application came before the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute arose from allegations that the Union had breached its legal obligations in relation to industrial action and the provision of certain information. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Union was required to produce the requested documents and, if so, under what conditions. The court considered whether the documents were relevant to the proceedings and whether the Union had a legitimate reason to withhold them. It also examined the balance between the parties' rights to access information and the potential prejudice that could arise from disclosure.

The court found that the documents were indeed relevant and necessary for the proper conduct of the proceedings. It held that the Union had not demonstrated any valid reason to withhold the documents and that the balance of convenience favoured their production. The court acknowledged the Union's concerns about potential prejudice but determined that these could be mitigated through appropriate measures. The court ordered the Union to produce the documents, subject to certain conditions designed to protect sensitive information and ensure fair use of the documents in the proceedings.

The court's decision emphasised the importance of transparency and cooperation in legal proceedings, particularly in matters involving industrial disputes. It underscored the need for parties to provide relevant information to enable the court to make informed decisions. The Union's application to appeal the decision was subsequently dismissed. The final orders included the production of the documents under the specified conditions and the dismissal of the Union's appeal.

Griffin Coal Mining Company Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established