- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Australia
- /
- Wollongong Coal Limited v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
Wollongong Coal Limited v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
About this case
Filing year
2020
Status
Decided
Geography
Court/admin entity
Australia → Australian Capital TerritoryFair Work Commission Full Bench
Case category
Suits against governments (Global) → Energy and power (Global)
Principal law
Australia → Fair Work Act 2009
At issue
Whether it was proper for the Commissioner to decide that the effects and issues of climate change was not a proper matter for the commission to consider.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
09/24/2020
Appeal of decisions regarding the Fair Work Act of 2009 by the Fair Work Commission. While not a climate change focused lawsuit, it was noted and discussed that climate change, when considering public interest, was not a matter the Fair Work Commission should decide on.
Decision
Summary
Wollongong Coal sought to terminate its NRE No 1 Colliery Workplace Agreement under section 225 of the Fair Work Act 2009, arguing that the 2011 Agreement was outdated, financially burdensome, and restrictive for plans to reopen the Russell Vale mine, which had ceased operation and entered care and maintenance in 2015. The company planned to restart operations using a more labour-intensive bord and pillar mining method but claimed it was unable to achieve necessary operational flexibility under the existing agreement. The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) opposed the termination, asserting it would negatively impact former employees who expected re-employment under the agreement and could set a precedent lowering regional industry standards.
On Aoril 7, 2020, Commissioner Riordan dismissed Wollongong Coal’s termination application, concluding that the termination was not clearly in the public interest, given uncertain employment benefits and potential negative impacts on regional wages. Riordan also highlighted past compliance concerns with Wollongong Coal’s financial and employment obligations. The company appealed, arguing errors in the decision-making process, notably that speculative negative outcomes were improperly weighted, and that the Commission failed to properly assess the importance of termination for reopening the mine.
On 24 September 2020, a Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission upheld Wollongong Coal’s appeal. The Bench found the original decision contained significant errors in applying the legislative criteria under section 226, including improperly emphasizing speculative regional wage outcomes while inadequately evaluating the operational and financial necessity for terminating the agreement. Climate change issues, though briefly mentioned during the original proceedings, were explicitly considered not to be relevant to the Commission’s decision-making process, as policy on climate change and coal mining is a matter for government. The Full Bench quashed the initial decision and ordered a rehearing to properly determine if terminating the enterprise agreement was appropriate under all relevant circumstances.
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Fossil fuel
Economic sector
Finance