ALHMWU v Cranbourne RSL Sub-branch Inc [1999] FCA 1425

ALHMWU v Cranbourne RSL Sub-branch Inc [1999] FCA 1425

There is a serious question to be tried about whether the employer's actions in reducing hours and making threats amounted to duress under s 170WG(1), justifying interlocutory orders restoring applicants' previous working hours, subject to safeguards.

Parties
First Applicant: Australian Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union; Second Applicant: Andrew Weremijenko; Third Applicant: Kathleen Beadel; Fourth Applicant: Bruce Forbes; Fifth Applicant: Damian Beadel; Sixth Applicant: Natalie Sims; Seventh Applicant: Belinda Mallinson; Eighth Applicant: Samantha Jane Shepherd; First Respondent: Cranbourne RSL Sub Branch Inc; Second Respondent: Peter Smith; Third Respondent: Peter Somers
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief in the Context of a Claim for Penalties for Contravention of S 170 WG of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 / Interlocutory (interim Orders Made)
Outcome
Interlocutory orders granted
Legal Topics
Australian Workplace Agreements (awas), Duress Under Workplace Relations Act 1996 S 170 WG, Interlocutory Injunctions, Employment Classification Under Awards
Employment Law Industrial Law Australian Workplace Agreements (awas) Duress Under Workplace Relations Act 1996 S 170 WG Interlocutory Injunctions Employment Classification Under Awards

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 19
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union

First Applicant

Andrew Weremijenko

Second Applicant

Kathleen Beadel

Third Applicant

Bruce Forbes

Fourth Applicant

Damian Beadel

Fifth Applicant

Natalie Sims

Sixth Applicant

Belinda Mallinson

Seventh Applicant

Samantha Jane Shepherd

Eighth Applicant

Cranbourne RSL Sub Branch Inc

First Respondent

Peter Smith

Second Respondent

Peter Somers

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Relief in the Context of a Claim for Penalties for Contravention of S 170 WG of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 / Interlocutory (interim Orders Made)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents applied duress contrary to s 170WG(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 by reducing applicants' working hours for not signing AWAs
  2. 2 Whether interlocutory relief should be granted reinstating prior working hours and conditions

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious question to be tried about whether the employer's actions in reducing hours and making threats amounted to duress under s 170WG(1), justifying interlocutory orders restoring applicants' previous working hours, subject to safeguards.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders granted

Orders

  • First respondent must, upon undertaking as to damages, roster specified applicants to work not less than their average weekly hours between 1 Jan and 13 Sept 1999, and pay supervisory loading per the Award where applicable, until hearing or further order.
  • Respondents to file and serve defences by 1 November 1999.