Skip to main content
FWCFair Work Commission · 30 December 2025

BHP Coal Pty Ltd v The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (215V)

Citation: [2026] FWCFB 164

At a glance

Employees affected
46

What happened

BHP Coal Pty Ltd refused to bargain for an enterprise agreement covering white-collar employees at its Hay Point Coal Terminal (HPCT). The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (APESMA) applied for a majority support determination. BHP argued APESMA lacked standing because its members weren't covered by the organisation’s rules. The Commissioner found APESMA could represent some employees based on their roles and responsibilities. BHP appealed this decision.

What was decided

The Full Bench refused permission to appeal the Commissioner’s decision granting a majority support determination to APESMA. The bench agreed with the Commissioner's findings that APESMA was entitled to represent at least some of the employees, based on their roles and membership under specific rules within APESMA. BHP’s arguments regarding the definition of ‘coal mining industry’, managerial roles, and professional expertise were not considered grounds for appeal.

What it means for employers

Employers should carefully review employee organisation eligibility rules when considering bargaining requests. Understanding how roles are classified and defined is crucial in determining representational rights. A failure to bargain can lead to majority support determinations and obligations to engage in negotiations.

What it means for employees

Employees should be aware of the potential for unions or professional organisations to seek majority support determinations to initiate enterprise bargaining. Eligibility for union membership, as determined by organisational rules, is a key factor in determining representational rights.

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.

general-protectionsenterprise-agreementsham-contractingindustrial-relations

Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:

https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwcfb164.pdf

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

All cases