Why is one of the world’s largest mining companies fighting so hard to shut down the case of a single injured worker? Stephanie Tran reports.
The question sits at the centre 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. What followed was a decade-long battle for compensation.
Last month, Turner filed an appeal against a Federal Court of Australia decision that struck out his case and imposed sweeping suppression orders.
The settlement at the centre of the case
At the centre of the case is a 2022 settlement deed Turner signed with BHP. Turner alleges that a settlement was entered into under circumstances of significant financial distress and based on an incorrect characterisation of his employment and earnings.
Turner’s case centres on the claim that he was incorrectly classified as an office worker earning about $28,000 a year by BHP following his injury.
He alleges that BHP incorrectly classified him as an office worker earning about $28,000 a year. On that basis, he received roughly $400 a week after his injury, a figure far below what would have applied had he been correctly classified under the Black Coal Award for the roster he worked.
As a result, Turner was forced to live below the poverty line.
Turner maintains that if his wage and employment arrangements were fully examined, they would expose broader issues including workers’ compensation, superannuation and taxation arrangements across the sector.
Implications for the mining sector
Supporters of Turner’s case argue it has broader implications for the mining industry, particularly in relation to labour hire arrangements and wage compliance.
Geoff Shannon is Campaign Manager at Nationlink Solutions and the founder of Unhappy Miners, a campaign established to register and support workers who believe they may have been systematically underpaid and misclassified.
Shannon has been assisting Turner. He says the issues raised could have implications across the mining industry.
“This is not just about Simon,” Shannon said. “This has the potential to affect thousands of workers and billions in entitlements.”
Nationlink’s team commenced an investigation following reports surrounding alleged worker underpayment and misclassification involving Chandler Macleod Group and WorkPac.
“Our analysis to date indicates potential underpayments of approximately $43,900 per worker per year, with cumulative industry exposure estimated at over
$11 billion stretching back to 2013
— and we expect those figures to grow as our investigation continues to expand,” Shannon said.
(Calculations based on 20,000 nationally employed through mining industry through Chandler Macleod and Workpac.)
Meetings in Canberra
Before the matter reached the Federal Court, Turner’s claims had drawn attention in Canberra.
In 2023, meetings took place involving Turner, representatives of BHP and Tania Constable, the CEO of Minerals Council of Australia, the peak body representing major mining companies.
The meetings were facilitated after concerns were raised about the potential implications of Turner’s claims for the broader industry.
A further meeting in June 2024 involved legal representatives for BHP, Turner and a representative connected to the office of One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts.
Eighty-three days after the June meeting, BHP’s government relations team sent a letter to Roberts stating that Turner’s claims were “unfounded” and had “no prospect of success” and closed the door on further settlement discussions.
Change of tack
The letter, seen by MWM, refers to a December 2023 meeting but does not mention the June 2024 conference.
Turner alleges the omission was deliberate and contributed to Roberts ceasing public advocacy on his behalf.
It is unclear what briefings Roberts received from his office following the June meeting.
There has been no finding by any court of improper conduct in relation to these events.
Turner’s appeal is expected to focus on procedural fairness, including whether he was given a sufficient opportunity to present evidence as a self-represented litigant before his case was dismissed.
The court has refused to lift suppression orders over key documents, meaning much of the underlying material remains out of public view.
Source: Michael West Read More