Behind the coal miner v BHP – 20,000 miners and a bunch of giant mining corporations

Why is one of the world’s largest mining companies trying so hard to close the case of a single injured worker? Stephanie Tran reports.

This question is at the heart of Simon Turner’s long-running dispute with BHP Group. Turner, a former coal miner, broke his back at BHP’s Mt Arthur mine in 2015. A decade-long fight for compensation followed.

Last month, Turner filed an appeal against a Federal Court of Australia decision that led to the dismissal of his case and the imposition of sweeping closure orders.

The settlement at the heart of the case

At the center of the case is the settlement deed dated 2022 that Turner signed with BHP. Turner alleges that a settlement was reached under circumstances of severe financial hardship and based on mischaracterizations of his employment and earnings.

Turner’s case centers on an allegation that after his injury he was incorrectly classified by BHP as an office worker earning about $28,000 a year.

He claims BHP incorrectly classified him as an office worker earning around $28,000 a year. On this basis, he received approximately $400 a week after his injury; This was well below the figure that would have been applied had the staff he worked for been correctly classified under the Black Coal Award.

As a result, Turner was forced to live below the poverty line.

Turner argues that if wage and employment regulations were fully examined, they would reveal broader issues across the industry, including workers’ compensation, retirement and taxation regulations.

Implications for the mining industry

Supporters of Turner’s case argue it has wider implications for the mining industry, particularly in terms of labor hiring regulations and wage compliance.

Geoff Shannon is the Campaign Manager and founder at Nationlink Solutions. Unhappy MinersA campaign created to register and support workers who believe they are systematically underpaid and misclassified.

He helps Shannon Turner. He said the emerging issues could have implications across the mining industry.

“This isn’t just about Simon,” Shannon said. “This has the potential to impact thousands of workers and billions of rights.”

Nationlink’s team launched an investigation following reports surrounding allegations of worker underpayment and misclassification involving Chandler Macleod Group and WorkPac.

“Our analysis to date indicates potential underpayment of approximately $43,900 per worker per year; The cumulative sector risk is estimated to be above this.

$11 billion dating back to 2013

“We expect these numbers to increase as our investigation expands,” Shannon said.

(Calculations are based on 20,000 people employed nationally in the mining sector through Chandler Macleod and Workpac.)

Meetings in Canberra

Turner’s allegations attracted attention in Canberra before the matter reached the Federal Court.

Meetings were held in 2023, attended by BHP’s representatives, Turner, and Tania Constable, CEO of the Australian Minerals Council, the highest body representing major mining companies.

The meetings were facilitated after concerns were raised about the potential impact of Turner’s allegations on the wider industry.

The next meeting in June 2024 included BHP’s legal representatives, Turner and a representative from the office of One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts.

Eighty-three days after the June meeting, BHP’s government relations team closed the door on further discussion of solutions by sending a letter to Roberts stating that Turner’s allegations were “unfounded” and had “no chance of success”.

change of direction

The letter he saw MWMIt refers to a meeting in December 2023 but does not mention the June 2024 conference.

Turner claims the negligence was intentional and contributed to Roberts ceasing to act as a public defender on his behalf.

It’s unclear what briefings Roberts received from his office following the June meeting.

No improper conduct has been found by any court in relation to these incidents.

Turner’s appeal is expected to focus on procedural fairness, including whether he was given adequate opportunity to present evidence as a self-represented plaintiff before his case was dismissed.

The court refused to lift suppression orders on key documents, meaning most key documents remain out of public view.