Pilkington (Australia) Operations Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union [2003] FCA 1587

Pilkington (Australia) Operations Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union [2003] FCA 1587

The error in the union's description of the employer in the bargaining notice was not shown to invalidate the initiation of the bargaining period for the purposes of interlocutory relief, because the notice reached the intended employer and the Act should be applied broadly and flexibly in this context. Even if there were a serious question to be tried, its strength did not warrant an interlocutory injunction. The union's separate application to restrain the employer from pursuing proceedings was devoid of merit, as the matters could be raised in opposition to the employer's application and the legality of the union's conduct could be determined at trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Applications Under Ss 170 NC and 170 NF of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Concerning Industrial Action and Alleged Coercion in Bargaining / Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Each application for interlocutory relief was refused.
Legal Topics
['protected Industrial Action' 'initiation of Bargaining Period' 'notice to Negotiating Parties' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'coercion in Workplace Bargaining']
['industrial Law' 'workplace Relations'] ['protected Industrial Action' 'initiation of Bargaining Period' 'notice to Negotiating Parties' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'coercion in Workplace Bargaining']

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

Applications Under Ss 170 NC and 170 NF of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Concerning Industrial Action and Alleged Coercion in Bargaining / Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the union's Notice of Initiation of Bargaining Period dated 5 November 2003 met the requirements of s 170MI of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) despite describing the employer as Pilkington Australia Ltd, Victoria State Operations." 'Whether the employer should receive interlocutory relief on the basis that the union was engaged in unlawful industrial action.' 'Whether the employer should be restrained from instituting or pursuing proceedings in the Court because the union alleged ulterior motives in seeking injunctive relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The error in the union's description of the employer in the bargaining notice was not shown to invalidate the initiation of the bargaining period for the purposes of interlocutory relief, because the notice reached the intended employer and the Act should be applied broadly and flexibly in this context. Even if there were a serious question to be tried, its strength did not warrant an interlocutory injunction. The union's separate application to restrain the employer from pursuing proceedings was devoid of merit, as the matters could be raised in opposition to the employer's application and the legality of the union's conduct could be determined at trial.

Court Disposition

Each application for interlocutory relief was refused.

Orders

  • ['Each application for interlocutory relief be refused.']