Syntech Resources Pty Ltd v Minchin
[2025] QIRC 272
•25 September 2025
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
| CITATION: | Syntech Resources Pty Ltd v Minchin [2025] QIRC 272 |
| PARTIES: | Syntech Resources Pty Ltd v Minchin, John |
| 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 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 law
Federal 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.
On that basis, I accept the submission that Mr Minchin is an eligible employee pursuant to the Administration Act.
The applicant submits that the entitlement to long service leave, payment of it, and any disputes about that, are all governed by the Administration Act, the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), and other federal legislation that applies. There are several Commonwealth pieces of legislation that do apply. The Administration Act and the other related federal legislation, in the applicant’s submission, "covers the field" with respect to long service leave for Mr Minchin. I accept those submissions.
If there were any doubt about the Administration Act displacing any state law providing for long service leave entitlements, s 39EA of the Administration Act makes it very clear. It relevantly says that this part, which is part 5A, providing for entitlement to long service leave, applies in relation to eligible employees, which I accept Mr Minchin is one of, and their employers, to the exclusion of a State or Territory law that deals with long service leave. I therefore accept that because the Administration Act and other federal law provides Mr Minchin’s long service leave entitlements in their entirety, the IR Act does not apply. So, there is, and was, no power to make an order as was made on 28 August 2025, pursuant to s 110 of the IR Act.
The case for reopening EC/2025/648
As to reopening of EC/2025/648, s 484 of the IR Act gives the Commission power to reopen a matter, and also revoke or amend any decision.
As to whether to do so, the decision in Fowler v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 149 is instructive. So, too, is a decision also provided to me in the matter of Re: Fagg [2021] QIRC 323. There are several key considerations, but primarily, the most relevant of them is whether it is in the interests of justice to reopen the matter. Consideration of any prejudice to other parties, financial or otherwise, is something that needs to be weighed, as does the benefit of the finality of litigation being in the interests of justice to see matters concluded once and for all.
However, I note the submissions, and accept the submissions of Syntech, particularly in paragraph 24 of its written submissions, where it notes that the power to reopen matters is a broad one, and “the inclusion of the power in the IR Act clearly contemplates that instances of oversight and inadvertence may sometimes occur, with the Commission having access to a power of variation and revocation in those circumstances", citing the High Court authority of Esso Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Workers’ Union [2017] HCA 54”. In my opinion, I can think of no better example of a case to reopen being in the interests of justice than one where the orders were issued inadvertently without jurisdiction. Grounds to reopen EC/2025/648 are made out for that reason, in my opinion. I order, accordingly, that EC/2025/648 be reopened.
The case for revocation of earlier orders and dismissal of earlier application
I am satisfied, for the reasons mentioned earlier, that the orders issued in EC/2025/648 were all, bar one, issued in error. Because of the sensitive nature of the confidential financial and other information before the Commission as part of Mr Minchin’s application for cashing out of long service leave, the suppression order of 28 August 2025 should stand, or perhaps, put another way, it should be reissued.
For practical ease, I will order that: EC/2025/648 is reopened; the orders in EC/2025/648 issued on 28 August 2025 are revoked; EC/2025/648 is dismissed; and that all information on the Commission file disclosing confidential financial and other circumstances of John Minchin are withheld from release or search.
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 number EC/2025/648 be withheld from release or search.
0
3
0