Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Anglo Coal (Callide Management) Pty Ltd
Citation: [2016] FCAFC 57
What happened
Anglo Coal created three new OCE/Supervisor positions at its Callide Mine in 2014 combining open cut examiner and supervisory duties. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union complained that it was not involved in the recruitment and selection process and that grievance procedures were not followed when the union objected. The positions had supervisory responsibilities and reporting lines to production superintendents, distinct from standard Production Employee Level 3 classifications.
What was decided
The Full Bench dismissed the union's appeal. The court found that the OCE/Supervisor positions were not covered by the enterprise agreement because the agreement's classifications did not include supervisory skills or functions, and the grievance procedure only applied to matters arising from the agreement's application. The new positions fell outside the agreement's scope, so recruitment and grievance procedures within the agreement did not apply.
What it means for employers
Employers may create new positions outside enterprise agreement classifications without triggering agreement-based recruitment or grievance processes, provided the positions genuinely involve functions and skills not covered by agreement classifications. Clear position descriptions and reporting line distinctions are important to support this argument.
What it means for employees
Workers should review their enterprise agreement to understand which positions and functions it covers. Not all roles within a workplace may be covered, and agreement protections apply only to roles specifically classified or described in the agreement.
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.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2016/2016fcafc0057Want 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.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →