Syntech Resources Pty Ltd v Minchin - [2025] QIRC 272

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Syntech Resources Pty Ltd v Minchin [2025] QIRC 272
PARTIES:	Syntech Resources Pty Ltd (Applicant) v Minchin, John (Respondent)
CASE NO:	B/2025/81
PROCEEDING:	Application to reopen proceedings
DELIVERED ON:	25 September 2025
HEARING DATE:	25 September 2025
MEMBER:	Pratt IC
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS:	1. *Pursuant to s 484(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016* (Qld), leave is granted to reopen application EC/2025/648 for payment instead of taking long service leave. 2. Pursuant to s 484(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the orders of the Commission issued on 28 August 2025 in matter EC/2025/648 are revoked. 3. The application in matter EC/2025/648 for payment instead of taking long service leave is dismissed.** 4. Pursuant to s 580 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), all confidential information relating to the financial and other personal matters of Mr John Minchin contained in the application materials of matter EC/2025/648 be withheld from release or search.
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – APPLICATION TO REOPEN PROCEEDINGS – application to reopen a matter, revoke orders, and dismiss the original application for payment instead of taking long service leave – consideration of jurisdiction to grant application for payment of long service leave for employees in the black coal mining industry in Queensland – held relevant Commonwealth law covers the field and therefore no jurisdiction arises under the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) – error in original decision – grounds for reopening considered – application to reopen, revoke and dismiss unopposed – grounds for reopening made out – application to reopen granted – application to revoke orders granted – application to dismiss original application granted
LEGISLATION AND INSTRUMENTS:	Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Administration Act 1992 (Cth) s 4, s 39EA Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 110, s 484
CASES:	Esso Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Workers’ Union [2017] HCA 54 Fowler v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 149 Re: Fagg [2021] QIRC 323
APPEARANCES:	Mr T Sebbens of Ashurst Australia for the Applicant. The Respondent in person.

Reasons for Decision

Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcript

This application

By application, Syntech Resources Pty Ltd, which I will refer to as 'Syntech', seeks to reopen matter number EC/2025/648, being an application for cashing out of long service leave pursuant to s 110 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), which I will refer to as the 'IR Act'. Syntech also seeks, by way of that application, orders revoking orders that the Commission issued on 28 August 2025 in that matter, EC/2025/648. Those orders were for Syntech to pay out to Mr Minchin long service leave entitlements pursuant to s 110(4)(b) of the IR Act. Syntech also seeks by way of this application, if the matter is reopened, orders to dismiss that application (EC/2025/648).
Background
By way of brief background, Mr Minchin works as a loader operator in the Cameby Downs Mine. I accept the submissions of the applicant, unopposed, which say that that is an open cut coal mine…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Syntech Resources Pty Ltd v Minchin and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QIRC 272
Decision Date: 25 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Syntech Resources Pty Ltd applied to the Commission to reopen proceedings in relation to an earlier application for payment of long service leave for employees in the black coal mining industry in Queensland. Syntech sought to revoke the orders made by the Commission on 28 August 2025, which required Syntech to pay Mr Minchin the cash equivalent of his accrued long service leave. Syntech also sought to dismiss the original application. The matter was brought before the Commission for consideration of its jurisdiction and to decide whether the application to reopen, revoke, and dismiss the original application should be granted.

The central issue before the Commission was whether the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) provided jurisdiction for the original application for payment of long service leave. Syntech argued that relevant Commonwealth law, specifically the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Administration Act 1992 (Cth), covered the field, thereby precluding any jurisdiction under the IR Act. The Commission accepted that Mr Minchin was an eligible employee under the Commonwealth Act, and that the Commonwealth law provided the primary mechanism for long service leave in the black coal mining industry. As a result, the Commission found that the IR Act did not provide jurisdiction for the original application.

In light of the Commission's findings, the application to reopen, revoke, and dismiss the original application was unopposed. The Commission granted the application to reopen the matter, revoked the orders issued on 28 August 2025, and dismissed the original application for payment of long service leave. The Commission also made orders to withhold confidential information relating to Mr Minchin's financial and personal matters from release or search.

The Commission granted Syntech's application to reopen the matter, revoked the orders made on 28 August 2025, and dismissed the original application for payment of long service leave. The Commission also made orders to withhold confidential information relating to Mr Minchin's financial and personal matters from release or search.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 484(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), leave is granted to reopen application EC/2025/648 for payment instead of taking long service leave.

2. Pursuant to s 484(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the orders of the Commission issued on 28 August 2025 in matter EC/2025/648 are revoked.

3. The application in matter EC/2025/648 for payment instead of taking long service leave is dismissed.

4. Pursuant to s 580 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), all confidential information relating to the financial and other personal matters of Mr John Minchin contained in the application materials of matter EC/2025/648 be withheld from release or search.

Background

Background to the litigation

By application, Syntech Resources Pty Ltd, which I will refer to as 'Syntech', seeks to reopen matter number EC/2025/648, being an application for cashing out of long service leave pursuant to s 110 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), which I will refer to as the 'IR Act'. Syntech also seeks, by way of that application, orders revoking orders that the Commission issued on 28 August 2025 in that matter, EC/2025/648. Those orders were for Syntech to pay out to Mr Minchin long service leave entitlements pursuant to s 110(4)(b) of the IR Act. Syntech also seeks by way of this application, if the matter is reopened, orders to dismiss that application (EC/2025/648).Background By way of brief background, Mr Minchin works as a loader operator in the Cameby Downs Mine. I accept the submissions of the applicant, unopposed, which say that that is an open cut coal mine operating in the black coal industry. That will become more relevant later in these reasons. Mr Minchin’s employment is ongoing with Syntech. EC/2025/648 is the subject of a suppression order due to the confidential nature of some of the facts that gave reason to granting orders in that application. Effectively, it sought, in summary, cashing out of more than eight years of service worth of long service leave. It was called on for mention, and the Commission inquired of the parties about Mr Minchin’s length of service, which on the application, stated the service with Syntech to be a lot less than eight years. Syntech advised that that was the case, but there was a portable long service leave scheme for the black coal industry which applied. It was proposed that the Commission issue the usual order seeking confirmation of service and accrued long service leave, and if ordered to pay out a sum, that Syntech seek a reimbursement from the relevant long service leave authority. Syntech duly returned an employer statement regarding an application for payment instead of taking long service leave, indicating that there was a sum of about 18.4 weeks of accrued long service leave entitlement for Mr Minchin. The Commission then issued orders obliging Syntech to pay to Mr Minchin the cash equivalent of that accrued long service leave pursuant to s 110 (4)(b) of the IR Act. Suppression orders were also made to protect Mr Minchin’s confidential financial and other information. Relevant submissions and lawFederal law "covers the field" This application makes a short point. It is effectively that the IR Act does not apply, and so no jurisdiction accrues under which an order that Syntech pay long service leave entitlements could be made. That is because, as noted earlier, Mr Minchin works in the black coal industry and is an 'eligible employee' pursuant to s 4 of the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Administration Act 1992 (Cth), which I will refer to as the 'Administration Act'. The definition within the Administration Act of 'eligible employee' provides, relevantly to this case, two alternatives. Firstly, that an employee who is employed in the black coal mining industry by an employer engaged in the black coal mining industry whose duties are directly connected with the day-to-day operation of a black coal mine. Or secondly, an employee who is employed in the black coal mining industry whose duties are carried out at or about a place where black coal is mined, and are directly connected with the day to day operation of a black coal mine. It seems to me that either of those could capture Mr Minchin, and in fact, on the submissions before me, both of them do.

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.