[2024] FWC 3306
Citation: [2024] FWC 3306
What happened
Wollongong Resources, a coal mine operator, issued a Prohibition Notice on January 18, 2024, due to safety concerns following a frictional ignition event. This notice effectively halted coal production. As a result, the company stood down 177 employees. The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia (APESMA) disputed the right to stand down employees without pay and sought intervention from the Fair Work Commission. Subsequently, Wollongong Resources announced a workforce reduction of approximately 50%, and some employees were made redundant.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission did not grant Wollongong Resources’ application for a stay of proceedings regarding the dispute over the stand down of employees. The Commission considered factors such as the timing of the dispute’s commencement, APESMA’s right to a hearing, and the potential disadvantage to employees who were stood down without pay. The Commission noted that Wollongong Resources had not demonstrated that a stay would be in the interests of justice. The decision does not resolve the primary dispute, which centres on whether Wollongong Resources could reasonably be held responsible for the cause of the work stoppage.
What it means for employers
Employers must carefully consider the reasons for work stoppages and whether they are reasonably responsible for the cause. Government regulator notices and safety concerns can trigger stand down procedures, but employers need to ensure they comply with Fair Work Act provisions and consider the impact on employees. A workforce reduction announcement alongside a stand down may raise concerns about the genuineness of the stand down.
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.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2024fwc3306.pdfSend your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. 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.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.
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.
Just need this week sorted? A 7-Day Pass is 50 questions over 7 days, no account. Get a 7-Day Pass — $14.99
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