Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd
At a glance
- 2500
What happened
BHP Coal Pty Ltd operated five coal mines in Queensland with approximately 2,500 permanent employees under an enterprise agreement that included a consultation clause. Due to economic conditions and falling coal prices, BHP Coal decided by 23 September 2014 that a business restructure was necessary and that there was a surplus of permanent employees that could not be addressed through natural attrition. The union sought orders to require proper consultation before redundancies were implemented.
What was decided
The court found there was a serious question to be tried as to whether BHP Coal failed to comply with clause 32 of the enterprise agreement requiring consultation about the possibility and management of redundancies. However, the court refused the application for interlocutory injunction, finding the balance of convenience did not favour preventing the redundancy process. The employer could pursue the redundancy process while the substantive claim was heard.
What it means for employers
Enterprise agreements imposing consultation obligations for redundancy require genuine consultation before implementation. However, courts are reluctant to grant interlocutory injunctions preventing redundancy decisions, particularly where the employer is facing genuine business difficulties.
What it means for employees
Employees covered by enterprise agreements have consultation rights before redundancy, but these are difficult to enforce through interlocutory relief. Substantive claims for breach of consultation obligations may succeed but damages may be the remedy rather than prevention of redundancy.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. FairWork Mate may receive a referral fee from Liquid Legal. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.