Mining and Energy Union (301V) v Batchfire Callide Management Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2104
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
The Mining and Energy Union (MEU) brought an application to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) regarding a dispute with Batchfire Callide Management Pty Ltd (Batchfire). The dispute concerned Batchfire’s refusal to approve workplace delegate leave for the Applicant, a coal mine operator and MEU member, to attend the 2026 Global Dust Conference. The Applicant had applied for the leave in December 2025, which was initially logged into a site's leave spreadsheet. A supervisor approved the application but Batchfire’s Mining Manager later denied it, stating the correct approval process wasn't followed and annual leave should be used instead. The Applicant attended the conference anyway.
What was decided
The FWC agreed to determine the dispute on the papers after unsuccessful attempts at resolution. The Commission considered arguments from both sides regarding the interpretation of clause 22.3 of the Callide Mine Union Enterprise Agreement 2024, which addresses Workplace Delegate entitlements. Batchfire argued that interpreting the agreement involves understanding what a reasonable person would understand by its language and not rewriting it to achieve a fair outcome. The decision on whether Batchfire’s refusal was reasonable will be determined based on the plain meaning of the enterprise agreement.
What it means for employers
Employers should carefully review their processes for approving workplace delegate leave, ensuring compliance with the terms of any applicable enterprise agreements or modern awards. They need to understand that interpreting these documents involves considering the language used and the context in which it was agreed upon, not necessarily achieving a perceived 'fair' outcome.
What it means for employees
Employees should be aware of their rights under enterprise agreements and modern awards regarding workplace delegate leave. If an employer denies such leave, employees can seek assistance from their union or lodge a dispute with the Fair Work Commission to clarify the agreement’s meaning and ensure compliance.
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/2026fwc2104.pdfWant 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 →