John Holland Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2013] FCA 1309

John Holland Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2013] FCA 1309

The Court accepted that the new evidence provided prima facie evidence that a union official persuaded or encouraged employees not to return to work and that the other officials gave passive or tacit support, establishing a prima facie case of breach of ss 417, 421 and 343 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by each respondent. There was also prima facie evidence of a breach of s 45D of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). Because work stoppages were causing substantial economic harm and the respondents did not submit that the balance of convenience opposed relief, the orders made on 7 November 2013 should continue, but the evidence did not justify the further geographical restraint...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunctions in Industrial Law Proceedings Alleging Contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (cth) / Interlocutory Injunction Application Following Urgent Interim Injunctions Made on 7 November 2013
Outcome
The Court declined to discharge the orders made on 7 November 2013, refused the further geographical restraint sought by the applicant, and reserved costs.
Legal Topics
['unprotected Industrial Action' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'prima Facie Case' 'secondary Boycott' 'balance of Convenience' 'enterprise Agreement Dispute']
['industrial Law' 'competition Law'] ['unprotected Industrial Action' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'prima Facie Case' 'secondary Boycott' 'balance of Convenience' 'enterprise Agreement Dispute']

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 Interlocutory Injunctions in Industrial Law Proceedings Alleging Contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (cth) / Interlocutory Injunction Application Following Urgent Interim Injunctions Made on 7 November 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was prima facie evidence that the respondents persuaded or encouraged workers not to return to work at the applicant's construction sites." 'Whether there was prima facie evidence of a breach of ss 417, 421 and 343 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).' 'Whether there was prima facie evidence of a secondary boycott in breach of s 45D of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).' 'Whether the balance of convenience supported continuing interlocutory injunctive relief.' 'Whether the evidence justified a further order restraining conduct within a specified geographical distance of the two sites.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court accepted that the new evidence provided prima facie evidence that a union official persuaded or encouraged employees not to return to work and that the other officials gave passive or tacit support, establishing a prima facie case of breach of ss 417, 421 and 343 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by each respondent. There was also prima facie evidence of a breach of s 45D of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). Because work stoppages were causing substantial economic harm and the respondents did not submit that the balance of convenience opposed relief, the orders made on 7 November 2013 should continue, but the evidence did not justify the further geographical restraint...

Court Disposition

The Court declined to discharge the orders made on 7 November 2013, refused the further geographical restraint sought by the applicant, and reserved costs.

Orders

  • ['The orders of 7 November 2013 will not be discharged.' 'Costs are reserved.']