Woodside Energy Ltd v McDonald [2003] FCA 69

Woodside Energy Ltd v McDonald [2003] FCA 69

The applications for interlocutory relief were dismissed as there was insufficient risk of irreparable harm to either the State or Federal unions or their members if relief were denied, and other factors, including delay, the risk of demarcation disputes, possible disruption to ongoing works, and inconvenience to the employers, weighed against granting interlocutory relief. The court found that while serious questions were to be tried, the balance of convenience did not favour granting the interlocutory orders sought.

Parties
Applicant / First Cross Respondent / First Respondent: Woodside Energy Limited; First Respondent: Joseph McDonald; Second Respondent / Cross Claimant: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union of Workers; Third Respondent / Second Cross Respondent / Respondent: CBI Constructors Pty Ltd; Intervenor: The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations; First Applicant / Cross Claimant: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Second Applicant: Bob Wade; Second Respondent: Brambles Australia Limited; Third Respondent: Wylie & Skene Pty Ltd; Fourth Respondent: Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union; Fifth Respondent: Australian Workers' Union
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Applications for Interlocutory Injunctions in Industrial/ Employment Law Context / Interlocutory (ruling on Applications for Interlocutory Injunctions)
Outcome
Applications for interlocutory relief dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Right of Entry, Certified Agreements, Industrial Relations, Inconsistency Between State and Federal Laws, Demarcation Disputes
Industrial Law Employment Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Interlocutory Injunctions Right of Entry Certified Agreements Industrial Relations +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Woodside Energy Limited

Applicant / First Cross Respondent / First Respondent

Joseph McDonald

First Respondent

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union of Workers

Second Respondent / Cross Claimant

CBI Constructors Pty Ltd

Third Respondent / Second Cross Respondent / Respondent

The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations

Intervenor

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

First Applicant / Cross Claimant

Bob Wade

Second Applicant

Brambles Australia Limited

Second Respondent

Wylie & Skene Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union

Fourth Respondent

Australian Workers' Union

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Applications for Interlocutory Injunctions in Industrial/ Employment Law Context / Interlocutory (ruling on Applications for Interlocutory Injunctions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory injunctions should be granted restraining refusal of entry to union representatives under State and/or Federal legislation
  2. 2 Whether provisions of the State Industrial Relations Act are inconsistent with the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) and/or certified agreements
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction and power to grant interlocutory relief given the regulatory scheme

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for interlocutory relief were dismissed as there was insufficient risk of irreparable harm to either the State or Federal unions or their members if relief were denied, and other factors, including delay, the risk of demarcation disputes, possible disruption to ongoing works, and inconvenience to the employers, weighed against granting interlocutory relief. The court found that while serious questions were to be tried, the balance of convenience did not favour granting the interlocutory orders sought.

Court Disposition

Applications for interlocutory relief dismissed

Orders

  • The application by the cross-claimant for the interlocutory relief sought in its notice of motion filed on 13 December 2002 is dismissed.
  • Any party (including the intervenor) has liberty to apply, by letter addressed to the Registrar, within 7 days in relation to costs of the above interlocutory application.