Standen v Feehan [2008] FCA 1009

Standen v Feehan [2008] FCA 1009

The respondent was exercising, or purporting to exercise, powers of entry under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) when he entered and remained at the Halifax Street site, showed his permit, raised suspected industrial and entitlement breaches, and moved on and off the site. While doing so, he intentionally left his vehicle in positions that impeded concrete trucks, waved away or delayed trucks, and stood with other union officials so as to block access. That conduct intentionally hindered or obstructed Mr Potter in coordinating the concrete pour and hindered or obstructed J & M Zito and its employees in carrying out their work, thereby contravening s 285E(1).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for an Order Seeking a Civil Penalty Under S 285 F(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) for Contravention of S 285 E(1) / Liability Determined; Proceeding Adjourned to Hear the Parties as to Penalty
Outcome
Application allowed; declaration made that the respondent contravened s 285E(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth); penalty adjourned.
Legal Topics
['right of Entry Permit' 'civil Penalty' 'intentional Hindrance or Obstruction' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) S 285 E(1)' 'union Official Entry to Premises']
['industrial Law'] ['right of Entry Permit' 'civil Penalty' 'intentional Hindrance or Obstruction' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) S 285 E(1)' 'union Official Entry to Premises']

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

Application for an Order Seeking a Civil Penalty Under S 285 F(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) for Contravention of S 285 E(1) / Liability Determined; Proceeding Adjourned to Hear the Parties as to Penalty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether on 5 May 2004 the respondent, whilst exercising powers under ss 285B or 285C of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), intentionally hindered or obstructed an employer or employee.' 'Whether the respondent had given adequate notice of his intention to exercise powers under ss 285B or 285C of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was exercising, or purporting to exercise, powers of entry under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) when he entered and remained at the Halifax Street site, showed his permit, raised suspected industrial and entitlement breaches, and moved on and off the site. While doing so, he intentionally left his vehicle in positions that impeded concrete trucks, waved away or delayed trucks, and stood with other union officials so as to block access. That conduct intentionally hindered or obstructed Mr Potter in coordinating the concrete pour and hindered or obstructed J & M Zito and its employees in carrying out their work, thereby contravening s 285E(1).

Court Disposition

Application allowed; declaration made that the respondent contravened s 285E(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth); penalty adjourned.

Orders

  • ['On 5 May 2004 the respondent contravened s 285E(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).' 'The proceeding be adjourned to hear the parties as to penalty.']