Adelaide Brighton Cement v Australian Workers Union [2002] FCA 601

Adelaide Brighton Cement v Australian Workers Union [2002] FCA 601

The notices were insufficiently specific regarding the timing and sequencing of rolling stoppages after the initial stoppage, thereby failing to comply with s 170MO and depriving the employer of the ability to take appropriate defensive action; thus, the threatened industrial action was not 'protected action' under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).

Parties
Applicant: Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd; Respondent: Australian Workers Union; Respondent: Automotive Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union; Respondent: Communications, Electronic, Energy, Postal Telecommunications and Allied Services Union; Respondent: John Gresty; Respondent: John Braithwaite; Respondent: Robert Johnston; Respondent: Geoff Munro
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Declaration and Injunction / Final Determination of Urgent Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Declarations granted that industrial action threatened by the first, second, and third respondents is not protected action; injunctions granted restraining such action; further penalty claims and costs adjourned.
Legal Topics
Protected Industrial Action, Compliance With Notice Requirements, Injunctions Restraining Industrial Action
Industrial Law Protected Industrial Action Compliance With Notice Requirements Injunctions Restraining Industrial Action

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

Parties

Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd

Applicant

Australian Workers Union

Respondent

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

Respondent

Communications, Electronic, Energy, Postal Telecommunications and Allied Services Union

Respondent

John Gresty

Respondent

John Braithwaite

Respondent

Robert Johnston

Respondent

Geoff Munro

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Declaration and Injunction / Final Determination of Urgent Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notices of intended industrial action complied with s 170MO of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the notices adequately identified the intended action and the day when it would begin
  3. 3 Whether threatened industrial action was 'protected action' within the meaning of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The notices were insufficiently specific regarding the timing and sequencing of rolling stoppages after the initial stoppage, thereby failing to comply with s 170MO and depriving the employer of the ability to take appropriate defensive action; thus, the threatened industrial action was not 'protected action' under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Declarations granted that industrial action threatened by the first, second, and third respondents is not protected action; injunctions granted restraining such action; further penalty claims and costs adjourned.

Orders

  • All industrial action threatened by the first, second, and third respondents after 7am on 2 May 2002 is not 'protected action' under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).
  • First, second, and third respondents restrained from organising, inciting, continuing, or threatening industrial action pursuant to or in reliance upon the relevant notices.