Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v John Holland Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 90

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v John Holland Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 90

The Full Court allowed the appeal because, although the primary judge was correct that the Expansion Agreement applied exhaustively to work performed by John Holland employees at the X50 Expansion worksite, the questions under ss 760, 767 and 768 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) had been approached on an erroneous basis. The relevant s 760 question was whether the permit holders had the prescribed purpose, not whether eligible employees in fact existed or whether they had reasonable grounds for believing entry was authorised. Because entry authorisation had not been determined in accordance with s 760, the contravention findings under ss 767(1) and 768(1), and the related penalty...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Federal Court Penal Proceedings Concerning Alleged Contraventions of Ss 767(1) and 768(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Full Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 made on 13 August 2009 set aside; matter remitted to the primary judge for further consideration; liberty to apply.
Legal Topics
['construction of Greenfield Workplace Agreement' 'right of Entry' 'hindering or Obstruction' 'misrepresentations About Right of Entry' 'construction of Ss 760, 767 and 768 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'relevance of Objective Background Facts and Subsequent Conduct']
['industrial Law' 'contract Law'] ['construction of Greenfield Workplace Agreement' 'right of Entry' 'hindering or Obstruction' 'misrepresentations About Right of Entry' 'construction of Ss 760, 767 and 768 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'relevance of Objective Background Facts and Subsequent Conduct']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Federal Court Penal Proceedings Concerning Alleged Contraventions of Ss 767(1) and 768(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Full Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the John Holland Pty Ltd – Abbot Point Coal Terminal Expansion Workplace Agreement 2008 applied exhaustively to work performed by John Holland employees at the X50 Expansion worksite.' 'Whether the primary judge misconstrued ss 760, 767 and 768 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).' "Whether alleged contraventions of ss 767(1) and 768(1) were established on the basis of the primary judge's reasoning." 'Whether findings and penalties concerning the alleged contraventions should stand or be remitted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Full Court allowed the appeal because, although the primary judge was correct that the Expansion Agreement applied exhaustively to work performed by John Holland employees at the X50 Expansion worksite, the questions under ss 760, 767 and 768 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) had been approached on an erroneous basis. The relevant s 760 question was whether the permit holders had the prescribed purpose, not whether eligible employees in fact existed or whether they had reasonable grounds for believing entry was authorised. Because entry authorisation had not been determined in accordance with s 760, the contravention findings under ss 767(1) and 768(1), and the related penalty...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 made on 13 August 2009 set aside; matter remitted to the primary judge for further consideration; liberty to apply.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'Orders 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 made on 13 August 2009 be set aside.' 'The matter be remitted to the learned primary Judge for further consideration.' 'Liberty to apply.']