Airservices Australia v United Firefighters' Union of Australia [2011] FCA 476

Airservices Australia v United Firefighters' Union of Australia [2011] FCA 476

Although the applicant had a seriously arguable case that the respondents' conduct may constitute industrial action, significant issues remained regarding whether the direction to work the 10-10 roster was validly made in accordance with the certified agreement, particularly as to consultation. On the balance of convenience, there was no demonstrated prejudice to the applicant in allowing the status quo to remain, while employees could suffer detriment if required to change rosters in the short-term. Accordingly, the application for interlocutory injunction was refused.

Parties
Applicant: Airservices Australia; First Respondent: United Firefighters' Union of Australia; Second Respondent: James Parker; Third Respondent: Laurie McMahon; Fourth Respondent: Andrew Morgan; Fifth Respondent: Peter Sparkes; Sixth Respondent: Rodney Fleming; Seventh Respondent: David Attenborough; Eighth Respondent: Tyson Conheady; Ninth Respondent: Sean Conquit; Tenth Respondent: Geoff Davies; Eleventh Respondent: Anthony Dicello; Twelfth Respondent: Brendan Fitzgerald; Thirteenth Respondent: Marc Jansen; Fourteenth Respondent: Tereapii Koronui; Fifteenth Respondent: James Lindsay; Sixteenth Respondent: Stuart Mackie; Seventeenth Respondent: John Mervin; Eighteenth Respondent: Paul Miller; Nineteenth Respondent: Daniel Morgan; Twentieth Respondent: Christopher Pryzgoda; Twenty First Respondent: Steven Rigby; Twenty Second Respondent: Leigh Schepisi; Twenty Third Respondent: Andrew Tonkin; Twenty Fourth Respondent: Nathan Pankhurst; Twenty Fifth Respondent: Steven Aldersley; Twenty Sixth Respondent: David Dent
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction refused.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Contravention of Statutory Prohibition, Rostering Under Enterprise Agreement, Industrial Action Under the Fair Work Act
Industrial Law Practice and Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Contravention of Statutory Prohibition Rostering Under Enterprise Agreement Industrial Action Under the Fair Work Act

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Airservices Australia

Applicant

United Firefighters' Union of Australia

First Respondent

James Parker

Second Respondent

Laurie McMahon

Third Respondent

Andrew Morgan

Fourth Respondent

Peter Sparkes

Fifth Respondent

Rodney Fleming

Sixth Respondent

David Attenborough

Seventh Respondent

Tyson Conheady

Eighth Respondent

Sean Conquit

Ninth Respondent

Geoff Davies

Tenth Respondent

Anthony Dicello

Eleventh Respondent

Brendan Fitzgerald

Twelfth Respondent

Marc Jansen

Thirteenth Respondent

Tereapii Koronui

Fourteenth Respondent

James Lindsay

Fifteenth Respondent

Stuart Mackie

Sixteenth Respondent

John Mervin

Seventeenth Respondent

Paul Miller

Eighteenth Respondent

Daniel Morgan

Nineteenth Respondent

Christopher Pryzgoda

Twentieth Respondent

Steven Rigby

Twenty First Respondent

Leigh Schepisi

Twenty Second Respondent

Andrew Tonkin

Twenty Third Respondent

Nathan Pankhurst

Twenty Fourth Respondent

Steven Aldersley

Twenty Fifth Respondent

David Dent

Twenty Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents’ conduct constituted industrial action under s 19 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether interlocutory injunction should issue restraining respondents working preferred roster
  3. 3 Whether direction to work new 10-10 roster was valid under terms of certified agreement

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant had a seriously arguable case that the respondents' conduct may constitute industrial action, significant issues remained regarding whether the direction to work the 10-10 roster was validly made in accordance with the certified agreement, particularly as to consultation. On the balance of convenience, there was no demonstrated prejudice to the applicant in allowing the status quo to remain, while employees could suffer detriment if required to change rosters in the short-term. Accordingly, the application for interlocutory injunction was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction refused.

Orders

  • The applicant's claim for interlocutory relief be refused.
  • The applicant file and serve any further affidavit or affidavits on which it intends to rely on or before 20 May 2011.