Miners win after six-year battle

Five Queensland miners have returned to work after a six-year 
battle against Rio Tinto. The Industrial Relations Commission 
found the five were unfairly dismissed from a central Queensland 
coal mine in an act of "victimisation" by the company.

Ned Appleton, Athol Finger, Don Halverson, Morgan Lindley and 
Bryan Walsh have all been reinstated, while two other men will 
start at the Hail Creek mine in October.

Health reasons precluded three other miners from returning to the 
industry. 

Ned Appleton says the men are looking forward to returning to 
work at the Blair Athol mine.

"The brave and victimised Blair Athol coal mine workers finally 
received justice", says Bruce Watson of the CFMEU Mining 
Division. "That these men and their families should have been 
subjected to almost six-years of victimisation and all the 
hardships that brings is a disgrace.

"That their unfair dismissal case could be dragged on for that 
long by a vindictive and powerful multinational is a gross 
miscarriage of justice inflicted on the Australian community by 
the Howard Government's rotten industrial laws." 

Mr Watson pointed out that the laws provide no time limit on 
unfair dismissal cases and allow only a maximum six months wages 
in compensation for workers found to have been unfairly 
dismissed.

"Under Howard's laws, an ordinary worker doesn't have a 
snowball's chance in hell against a corporate giant like Rio 
Tinto", he said. "Our union estimates that Rio spent in excess of 
$6 million in legal fees to keep out the Blair Athol 16."

The full bench of the AIRC in handing down its decision slammed 
the use of dodgy medical reasons to victimise staff.

The decision singled out the practices of Dr Peter Fenner, the 
nominated medical adviser for a number of Rio Tinto mines in 
central Queensland. The doctor was involved in assessing whether 
miners were fit to return to work.

The decision criticised Dr Fenner for being evasive and changing 
his evidence; being contradictory in his approach to medical 
examinations; having a poor understanding of his legal 
obligations as a nominated medical advisor; and exaggerating his 
professional status (i.e. claiming to be a specialist when he was 
not).