s.306E - Application for a regulated labour hire arrangement order

SKILLED WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS (NSW) PTY LTD REGULATED LABOUR HIRE ARRANGEMENT ORDER

Regulated labour hire arrangement order - Skilled Workforce Solutions (NSW) Pty Ltd in relation to work performed for Mt Arthur Coal Pty Ltd.

• [1] The Mining and Energy Union (MEU) applied under s 306E of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) for a regulated labour hire arrangement order applying to Mt Arthur Coal Pty Limited trading as BHP Mt Arthur Coal (BHP) as the regulated host and Skilled Workforce Solutions (NSW) Pty Ltd (Skilled) as an employer. The application was lodged on 26 September 2024.

• [2] The order sought was to apply to employees of Skilled who perform work at the Mt Arthur coal mine (Mine), which is an open cut black coal mine owned by Hunter Valley Energy Coal Pty Ltd (HVEC).

• [3] The order relates to labour hire arrangements whereby Programmed Skilled Workforce Ltd (Programmed) is contracted to supply labour to operate haul trucks which are provided and maintained by HVEC. The contract also requires Programmed to provide adequate supervision, management and training of a contractor workforce, and to provide administration services. Programmed owns all of the shares in Skilled. Skilled employs the labour supplied in accordance with the contract.

• [4] The mine comprises two separate mining areas: Mt Arthur North and Mt Arthur South. BHP is responsible for all aspects of the operations at the Mt Arthur North site. The Mt Arthur South site is operated separately, and the two sites do not share operations or services. BHP is the operator for and employs persons to work on the Mt Arthur north site. The contract between Programmed and HVEC applies to the Mt Arthur north site. BHP's employees at the mine are covered by the Mt Arthur Coal Enterprise Agreement 2023 (Agreement).

• [5] Neither BHP nor Skilled opposed the making of a regulated labour hire arrangement order. However, each opposed the form of the order sought by the MEU. Skilled and BHP contended that any order made include a description of the regulated employees that was narrower than the order sought by the MEU. BHP and Skilled submitted that if the application as sought was pressed it should be dismissed because it extended beyond the case presented.

• [6] The application was heard on 21 February 2025. At the conclusion of the hearing, I informed the parties that I had decided to make an order. The terms of the order did not confine the description of the employees in the manner sought by BHP and Skilled. The order was published that day[1]. It came into force on 7 March 2025.

• [7] These are the reasons for that decision.

• [8] In support of its application the MEU relied upon three witnesses. The witnesses were not cross examined. The first was Donna Davy who was initially employed to work at the mine by Skilled. She commenced working in June 2022 as a trainee. She was employed to drive haul trucks. She also drove other vehicles including minibuses to transport workers and light vehicles such as utes. Whilst employed by Skilled Ms Davy worked on a crew which comprised employees of both Skilled and BHP. In June 2024 she commenced employment with BHP to perform the same work. She remained on the same crew. She stated that there was no difference in her day to day duties.

• [9] Ms Davy stated that all Skilled employees were trained using the same training packages as BHP employee. The same safety management systems, policies, and procedures applied to employees whether employed by Skilled or BHP. Skilled employees worked in the same crews as BHP employees and performed the same production duties. The mine had a site induction process, all employees were required to perform the same induction. Sign on and sign off procedures, including drug and alcohol screening, were also the same for all employees, whether employed by Skilled or BHP. Pre-start meetings involved all employees, and Skilled workers were allocated to machinery using the same process as BHP workers. Roster arrangements were the same. Crib breaks were at the same time. They were staggered to keep machines operating constantly. Employees would "hot seat change" to allow this to occur and Skilled workers would swap into machines that had been operated by BHP workers for the duration of the breaks.

• [10] Ms Davy explains that the only difference in day to day work was, the Skilled employees allocated start place was different to BHP employees, requiring Skilled workers to start 10 minutes earlier. The same notification procedure was used when notifying absence due to personal or other leave. Personal protective equipment was provided by BHP for use by all workers.

• [11] This continues to be the case now that Ms Davy works for BHP. When Ms Davy changed employment the Agreement applied to her, and she received higher remuneration for performing the same work. When she worked for Skilled she was paid a flat hourly rate of $53.1971 for all rostered hours. After she started with BHP her base hourly rate went to $57.2716. BHP also paid production bonuses. At BHP Ms Davy's wages increased by $180.68 per week and she received weekly average bonuses of $1,167.80.

• [12] The MEU's second witness was Jeremy McWilliams, District Vice President. Mr McWilliams also described the mine's operations, workforce, and the MEU's involvement with BHP and the Skilled employees. ​He provided a copy of the Agreement. Clause 3 identifies persons covered. It states:

This Agreement covers and applies to the following parties:

• Mt Arthur Coal Pty Limited ("Company"); and
• Employees employed by the Company who perform work covered by Schedule A of the Black Coal Mining Industry Award 2020.

The Agreement also covers the Mining and Energy Union (MEU).

This Agreement is binding on all of the above parties.

• [13] Clause 10 of the Agreement sets wage rates and bonuses. It identifies the classification of employees entitled to payment and sets different wage rates for Mineworker Advanced, Mineworker, Trainee Commencement, and for Apprentices. Clause 10.1.5 provides for the progression between the Mineworker levels. It provides:

A trainee shall commence at the Trainee Commencement level and, subject to successfully completing the required training, shall progress to the Mineworker level upon gaining 1 core skills and progress to Mineworker Advanced level upon obtaining 3 skills in total.

New employees, other than trainees, shall commence at the Mineworker level and progress to the Mineworker Advanced level after obtaining 3 skills or at the company's discretion.

Apprentices shall progress according to their year of apprenticeship in accordance with the relevant table.

• [14] The skills described as core skills and ancillary skills are found in a table in Annexure 1 to the Agreement. Core mining skills are divided into categories of production skills and engineering skills. Those skills are then divided into Mining, CHPP, Service for Production skills and Mechanical and Electrical for Engineering skills. There are core skills and ancillary skills. Core skills relevantly include separate skills of "Trucks", "Dozers", "Graders", "Fuel Truck", "Water Truck", and "Equip Servicing (including Lube truck)". Ancillary duties include "General Duties" which are described as "First Aid Attendant, crib hut cleaning, light vehicle inspection and cleaning etc".

• [15] Mr McWilliams also described the employment conditions and contracts of Skilled employees, pointing to differences in pay and conditions compared to BHP employees. ​ He notes that Skilled employees are simply paid a flat hourly rate, which amount to significantly lower remuneration than the annual salary and bonuses received by BHP employees for performing the same role. ​ Mr McWilliams also provided various attachments, such as employment contracts, assignment sheets, and payslips.

• [16] The MEU's third witness was Mr Johnson. Mr Johnson is employed by BHP to work at the mine. He described his position as Production Operator in the classification of Mineworker Advanced under the Agreement. He works as an operator on haul trucks, water trucks, dozers and excavators. He also works in pumps and de-watering, signage, delineation and first aid. He is a trainer and elected mine health and safety representative.

• [17] Mr Johnson provided two statements. His first statement described mine operations, including safety protocols, health and safety committees, training procedures, and equipment usage. He described the production process, the roles of different crews, and the supervision structure at the mine. ​ He set out the way the work is performed at the mine and the integration of the Skilled and BHP workforces. He stated that both BHP and Skilled employees undergo the same training, adhere to the same safety standards, and perform the same tasks using BHP's equipment.

• [18] Mr Johnson also detailed the annual salary, bonuses, and incentive schemes for BHP employees under the Agreement. ​ He stated that Skilled employees, if employed by BHP, would be classified as Mineworkers under the Agreement.

• [19] Mr Johnson provided a second statement. It replied to the material filed by BHP and Skilled which suggested that Skilled workers only operated trucks. In his second statement Mr Johnson referred to recent steps by BHP to offer training opportunities to all workers at the mine, whether employed by BHP or Skilled, in watercart, dozer, and loader skills as well as for supervisory roles. He also described the means by which work is allocated using the "modular system" which he said is used to allocate workers not only to trucks but also to equipment, including light vehicles, buses, and other mining equipment. It also monitors the whole mining equipment fleet.

• [20] BHP relied on one witness, Mr Ross Carlson, Mining Engineering Manager. Mr Carlson provided a statement. He was not cross examined.

• [21] Mr Carlson described the mine as an open-cut energy coal mine owned by HVEC, part of BHP Group Limited. ​ Mt Arthur Coal Mine consists of two separate statutory mining areas Mt Arthur North, managed by Mt Arthur Coal, and Mt Arthur South, managed by Thiess Pty Ltd. Each area has distinct responsibilities and operations, with limited shared services.

• [22] Mt Arthur North employs personnel covered by the Agreement and other agreements. There are three operational teams: Production, Maintenance, and Coal Handling and Preparation Plant (CHPP). ​ He stated that Programmed is contracted to supply labour to operate haul trucks at Mt Arthur North. ​There is a Services Contract between HVEC and Programmed, which includes operation of haul trucks, supervision, training, and administration services.

• [23] Mr Carlson stated that Programmed supplied the labour through Skilled. Skilled currently employs a fluctuating number of personnel at the mine in the following roles: supervisor; operator: cleanskin; operator; operator - crew trainer; operator - crib relief; operator - floater; training scheduler; senior scheduler; and production performance specialist. Within the production team, which operates haul trucks there are four crews. In each crew there are approximately 100 workers comprised of both Skilled and BHP employees and there are both Skilled and BHP employed supervisors. The production team consists of approximately:
  • 216 personnel employed by BHP, who are covered by the Agreement;
  • 12 Supervisors employed by BHP, who are covered by the Mt Arthur Supervisors Enterprise Agreement 2021; and
  • 233 employees of Skilled.

• [24] Employees of Skilled operate the same haul trucks, in the same areas of Mt Arthur North, as employees of BHP. Those haul trucks are owned, supplied and maintained by HVEC. Employees of Skilled also operate light vehicles and minibuses as transport around the mine to access the locations where trucks are operating as well as crib hut and truck refuelling facilities. Most of those employees perform those duties alongside their duties driving haul trucks. There are also currently two Skilled employees who are authorised to operate water carts if required.

• [25] BHP and Skilled employees work the same rosters. Breaks are aligned and operators employed by both BHP and Skilled take their breaks together in the same crib huts. The BHP Dispatch Team use a modular system to monitor and manage the fleet of haul trucks, whether driven by BHP or Skilled employees, and allocations for each vehicle are automatically generated and monitored, with jobs allocated to employees based on availability and efficiency.

• [26] Mr Carlson also confirmed that employees of Skilled and employees of BHP attend the same induction processes when they commence on site, and the same training during employment, which is delivered by either BHP or Skilled trainers. Skilled employees are also required to comply with applicable BHP policies and the BHP Safety Management System while working on site.

• [27] Skilled relied on one witness, Mr Joel Cribb, General Manager North - Energy and Resources, Mr Cribb provided a statement. He was not cross examined. Mr Cribb explained that while Programmed holds customer contracts it does not employ the workers. Skilled employs the workers who perform the contracted work. ​ Consistent with this practice Programmed has a contract with BHP to provide labour for production work at the Mine and Skilled employs that labour. ​

• [28] Mr Cribb stated that initially, Programmed provided managed services, including infrastructure and management, charged on an all-inclusive rate with performance-based adjustments. ​ Since 24 November 2023, the contract operates as a traditional labour hire agreement, with Programmed providing labour charged at an hourly rate, while BHP manages the work. ​

• [29] Mr Cribb's evidence was that operators at the Mine are classified under the Skilled Workforce Solutions (NSW) Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2019 as Mineworker Level 1 Trainees, Mineworker Level 2 (inexperienced operators)(ML2), and Mineworker Level 3 (experienced operators)(ML3). ML2 and ML3 employees are production workers covered by the Black Coal Mining Industry Award 2020 and would be classified as Mineworkers under the Agreement if employed by Mt Arthur Coal Pty Ltd.

• [30] Mr Cribb confirmed that the BHP employees work 12.5-hour shifts on a 7-day even time roster, rotating between day and night shifts and Skilled operators follow a similar roster but work 12.67-hour shifts starting at 6:20 (am or pm). ​ Some Skilled Operators work ad-hoc shifts as "floaters," while others follow an 8-hour crib relief pattern. ​ ML2s are "new to industry" employees with no prior coal mining experience, requiring only a valid driver's license. They undergo a 2-week training period, followed by supervised work until deemed competent to operate haul trucks independently. ​ Fuel attendants, a subset of ML2s, work in refuelling bays after completing one week of training and may transition to haul truck operators after further training.

• [31] ​Mr Cribb stated Skilled employs 247 operators at the Mine, including 12 fuel attendants, 109 ML2 haul truck operators, and 126 ML3 haul truck operators. The Skilled workforce consists of 188 permanent employees and 59 casual employees, working various rosters and roles.

• [32] In Application by MEU re Callide Mine [2024] FWCFB 299 a Full Bench of the Commission outlined the principles for the proper application of s 306E[2]. I will apply, but do not repeat, the principles stated in that decision.

• [33] I am satisfied, for the purposes of s 306E(7) of the FW Act, that the MEU is an employee organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of the employees of Skilled who are supplied to perform work for BHP at the Mine alongside employees of BHP employed to perform work at the Mine. Accordingly, the MEU is entitled to apply for a regulated labour hire arrangement order under s 306E of the FW Act by operation of s 306E(7)(c).

• [34] I am also satisfied that the requirements of s 306E(1) of the FW Act, in relation to which I must be satisfied to trigger the obligation to make a regulated labour hire arrangement order, are met. Specifically, on the basis of the material filed, I am satisfied that:

(a) Programmed supplies employees employed by Skilled to perform work for BHP at the Mine involving production work.

(b) The Agreement would apply to employees of Skilled who are supplied to perform work for BHP if BHP were to employ those employees directly to undertake the same kind of work.

• [35] For the purposes of s 306E(1A) of the FW Act, I am satisfied that the performance of work is not or will not be for the provision of a service, rather than the supply of labour. In forming this view, I have had regard to the matters set out in subsection (7A). In relation to the matters referred to in s 306E(7A), I make the following findings:

(a) There is no evidence that Skilled has any involvement in matters relating to the performance of work by employees of Skilled working at the Mine.

(b) The evidence indicates that, while there is some supervision by Skilled employed supervisors, BHP arranges and oversees the work of Skilled employees who are supplied to perform work at the Mine, Skilled employees are assigned work by BHP, supervisors employed by BHP direct, instruct and monitor the work of Skilled employees and Skilled employees are subject to the same sign in/sign out and rosters as BHP employees.

(c) BHP and Skilled employees work alongside one another and use the same plant and equipment supplied by BHP and use the same crib facilities. Skilled employees are subject to operational procedures, health and safety systems and other policies and procedures established and enforced by BHP.

(d) There is no evidence that Skilled (or Programmed) is or will be subject to industry or professional standards or responsibilities in relation to the work of employees of Skilled supplied to BHP.

(e) The work undertaken by Skilled employees at the Mine involves the operation of plant and equipment and employees are provided with appropriate training, but it does not involve work of a specialist or professional nature.

• [36] Having regard to the considerations referred to in s 306E(7A), I find the performance of work by the employees supplied by Skilled to BHP at the Mine is not and will not be for the provision of a service. I find and am satisfied that Skilled supplies labour to BHP.

• [37] In relation to s 306E(2) of the FW Act, I am satisfied that it is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances to make a regulated labour hire arrangement order. Section 306E(2) indicates that the Commission is required to have regard to the matters listed in subsection (8) in relation to which submissions have been made. No submissions were made in relation to any of the matters in subsection (8). Accordingly, I am not required to have regard to those matters.

• [38] In those circumstances, I am required by s 306E to make a regulated labour hire arrangement order.

• [39] There was a dispute in relation to the terms of the order that should be made.

• [40] Skilled submitted that s306E(9) requires the Commission to specify five matters in its order. Those matters being the identified in the subsection; the identity of the regulated host covered by the order, the employer covered by the order, the regulated employees covered by the order, the host employment instrument covered by the order, and the day the order comes into force.

• [41] Skilled submitted that the order should make clear with "explicit certainty" the employees that will be covered. It relied on a number of decisions in other contexts which identify the need for orders to be unambiguous[3]. Skilled also referred to authority concerning orders made by the Commission relating to industrial action to the effect that if a person the subject of an order may be subject to a penalty if the order is contravened, there should be no doubt as to what their obligations are[4].

• [42] Relying on these submissions Skilled contended that the identification of the regulated employees should be qualified in three ways. First, the regulated employees covered by the order should be confined to "haul truck operators". It was said that the MEU's evidence only identified haul truck operators and so the order should be confined by the scope of the evidence. This was also identified as a jurisdictional issue as the jurisdictional basis for making the order did not extend beyond those employees identified in the evidence. The second qualification was that the regulated employees should be confined to employees who, if employed by BHP, would be covered by the Agreement. This is said to ensure coverage did not extend to persons and work performed at the direction of persons other than by BHP. Third, it was submitted that identification of the regulated employees should include an exclusion for haul truck operators engaged in the future should a contract for the provision of a service be entered under which haul truck operators might perform work.

• [43] BHP's submission also took issue with the form of the order submitting that the order should be confined to the MEU's evidentiary case, which was confined to haul truck operators employed by Skilled and supplied to BHP at the Mt Arthur North site. It also submitted that the order should specify that the regulated employees be those who would, if employed by BHP, be covered by the Agreement. The substance of the latter submission was met by the MEU's proposed order provided in reply to BHP's submissions.

• [44] In response to the matters raised by Skilled and BHP the MEU proposed an order which describes the regulated employees in a way that reflects several orders already made in the Commission in the coal mining industry. I was taken to a number of Full Bench decisions where orders have been made[5]. Consistent with those decisions and orders the description of the employees proposed by the MEU was:

The regulated employees covered by the order are employees of the Employer who perform work at the Mt Arthur North near Muswellbrook in the State of New South Wales who would, if employed by the Regulated Host, be covered by the host employment instrument (identified in item A.4 of this Order).

• [45] I disagree with the contentions of Skilled and BHP that the evidence was confined to describing the Skilled employees as haul truck operators. Ms Davy said she was employed by Skilled to drive haul trucks but also drove other vehicles such as minibuses and light vehicles. Mr Johnson gave evidence that Skilled employees were offered training opportunities to operate water trucks, dozers and loaders. Mr McWilliams provided examples of contracts of employment between Skilled and persons engaged to work at the Mine. Two described the position as "Experienced Operator" and said the employee would be classified as Mineworker Level 3 another described the role as simply "Haul Truck Operator". Payslips issued by Skilled were also provided where the position of the employee was described as "Hunter Valley Energy Coal Pty Ltd - Dump Truck Driver"..

• [46] Mr Carlson, for BHP, described Skilled's workforce at the mine as supervisors; operator: cleanskin; operator; operator - crew trainer; operator - crib relief; operator - floater; training scheduler; senior scheduler; and production performance specialist. He describes the work as operating trucks, light vehicles, minibuses and said there were Skilled employees authorised to operate water carts if required.

• [47] Mr Cribb for Skilled described to the Skilled workforce at the mine as operators which included a number of fuel attendants and haul operators. The operators are classified under the Skilled Workforce Solutions (NSW) Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2019 as Mineworker Level 1 Trainees, Mineworker Level 2 (inexperienced operators), and Mineworker Level 3 (experienced operators). The latter two classifications are said to be covered by the Black Coal Mining Industry Award 2020 and would be classified as Mineworkers under the Agreement if employed by Mt Arthur Coal Pty Ltd.

• [48] The evidence suggests that the description of the Skilled workers varies with expressions such as operator, mineworker, haul truck operator, haul truck driver, fuel attendant, and mineworker all used to describe the Skilled employees.

• [49] The coverage clause in the Agreement refers to employees "who perform work covered by Schedule A of the Black Coal Mining Industry Award 2010". Clause 12 of the Award provides that the classifications in which employees may be employed are set out in Schedule A - Production and Engineering Employees and Schedule B - Staff Employees. Schedule A includes definitions for five classifications levels denoted as Mineworkers commencing at Mineworker Induction and progressing to Mineworker Specialised. It includes rules for allocation to levels and progression to higher levels. It also includes rates of pay for each level. At A.5 is sets indicative competencies at each level. For open cut mines such as the mine here it identifies competencies as:

Dragline operation; Auger operation; Truck operation; Shovel operation; Cable handling; Drilling; Blasting; Shotfiring; Scraper operation; Excavator operation; Loader operation; Grader operation; Dozer operation; Pit Dewatering; Equipment servicing and maintenance; Washplant operation; Coal handling; Reclaim operation; Loader operation; Grader operation; Load out operation; Crusher/conveyor operation; Washplant servicing and maintenance; Tyre fitting; Crane operation; Rigging and dogging; Cross-trade skilling.

• [50] There is no dispute that the Skilled employees are covered by the Award and that if they were employed by BHP they would be covered by the Agreement. The classification structure in the Agreement assigns employees classifications described as Trainee, Mineworker, and Mineworker Advanced. Progression from Mineworker to Mineworker Advanced depends on the number of skills the employee has. The term "Truck" is used to described one of those skills.

• [51] Section 306E(9)(c) requires that a regulated labour hire arrangement order must specify the regulated employees covered by the order. Skilled and BHP seek orders in these proceedings that specify the employees as haul truck operators. An expression that is not used in the Agreement or Award. I can see no basis for doing so.

• [52] First, for the reasons set out above the evidence demonstrated that the Skilled employees performed duties beyond operating haul trucks including fuel attendants, operating light vehicles, and driving minibuses. There were also some who were trained to operate water trucks. BHP has also recently offered training opportunities to Skilled employees to train on water trucks, dozers and loaders. Restricting the class of employees by reference to haul truck operations would be contrary to the evidence of the scope of work performed by the employees.

• [53] Second, the expression "haul truck operators" is not used in any of the relevant instruments as a means of identifying employees. It is not used in the Agreement which identifies employees covered by it by reference to the Award, and rates of pay by reference to classifications of Trainee, Mineworker and Mineworker Advanced. It only refers to "trucks" as a skill that will determine the classification of the employee for the purpose of payment. In the Award the relevant classifications for employees are described as Mineworker and "truck operation" is used as an indicative competency used in open cut mines. Further the enterprise agreement which currently covers the Skilled employees, the Skilled Workforce Solutions (NSW) Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2019, does not use the expression haul truck operators to describe employees either. The expression is also not used in other documents associated with the employment, such as the contracts of employment and pay slips provided to Skilled employees.

• [54] The use of the expression haul truck operator to describe the regulated employees would be a departure from the manner in which the parties have described the employees. It would also limit the order impermissibly. It would also, and most importantly, depart from the manner in which the relevant industrial instruments describe employees. For these reasons I was not convinced that I should depart from the manner in which the regulated employees have been described in the earlier regulated labour hire arrangement orders I was taken to by the MEU.

• [55] Skilled also sought that the order exclude from its scope any future haul truck operators employed by it in respect of any future contract for the provision of services to BHP within the meaning of s. 306E(1A). A similar request was dealt with by the Full Bench in Application by Mining and Energy Union re Boggabri Coal Mine [2024] FWCFB 415. The Full Bench declined to make such an exclusion because the proposed exclusion could create confusion over the coverage of the order, and there was no evidence that the employer intended to enter into a contract to provide services to the host that would meet the description of the provision of a service in s. 2306E(1A). The Full bench observed that should such an arrangement come into operation then an application may be made to vary the order to address any uncertainty that may arise.

• [56] I was encouraged to take a different approach here because, unlike Boggabri, there was some evidence that in the past Programmed had entered into different arrangements that might be described as a contract for the provision of a service, and it may do so again. I did not consider that evidence to rise to the level that I could be satisfied that there was a real prospect that a contract for service would be entered into such that the order should contain an exclusion. I am also of the view that should such an arrangement arise, and were it to create confusion about the coverage of the order, application can be made to vary the order. Such an application may then be determined on the basis of actual arrangements and the evaluative judgment required by s. 306E(1A) can be applied at that time to those arrangements.

• [57] For the reasons set out above, I was required by s 306E of the FW Act to make a regulated labour hire arrangement order. As noted earlier, the order was published, setting out the matters specified in s 306E(9) on 21 February 2025[6]. The operative date of the order was 7 March 2025.

Mr L Howard, Counsel for Skilled Workforce Solutions New South Wales Pty Ltd

[3] Vanstone v Clark [2005] FCAFC 189; (2005) 147 FCR 299 at [13]; Beame v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2023] NSWSC 347; (2023) 297 A Crim R 131 at [75].

[4] MTIA v AMWU (1997) 87 and TWU v AIRC (2008) 166 CR 108

[5] Batchfire Callide Management Pty Ltd - LH200001 PR777029; Boggabri Coal Operations Pty Ltd -LH200011 PR780875; Stanmore SMC Pty Ltd - LH200007 PR780868; Anglo Coal (Capcoal Management) Pty Ltd - LH200006 PR780862; Anglo Coal (Capcoal Management) Pty Ltd - LH200005 PR780861; Peabody Energy Australia PCI Mine Management Pty Ltd - LH200009 PR780878_; Peabody Energy Australia PCI Mine Management Pty Ltd -_ LH200008 PR780870; Peabody Energy Australia PCI Mine Management Pty Ltd - LH200010 PR780872_; Illawarra Coal Holdings Pty Ltd_ - LH200014 PR782176.

[6] PR784646

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer