Williams v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing Kindred Industries Union [2009] FCA 86

Williams v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing Kindred Industries Union [2009] FCA 86

On the material before the court, the applicant established a prima facie case that the respondents' conduct amounted to the taking of action with intent to coerce or apply undue pressure to achieve an industrial agreement, contrary to s 44(1) of the BCII Act, thus justifying urgent interim injunctive relief.

Parties
Applicant: Andrew Williams; First Respondent: Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing Kindred Industries Union; Second Respondent: Construction Forestry Energy and Mining Union; Third Respondent: Mick Powell
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Injunction and Penalties / Interlocutory Application for Urgent Interim Relief
Outcome
Interim injunction granted pending further hearing
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Industrial Action, Coercion in Industrial Relations, Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005
Industrial Law Interim Injunctions Industrial Action Coercion in Industrial Relations Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Williams

Applicant

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

First Respondent

Construction Forestry Energy and Mining Union

Second Respondent

Mick Powell

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Injunction and Penalties / Interlocutory Application for Urgent Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents engaged in conduct amounting to unlawful industrial action under s 38 of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether respondents took action with intent to coerce or apply undue pressure contrary to s 44(1) of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth)
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to urgent interim injunctive relief under ss 39(2) and 49(3)(a) of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

On the material before the court, the applicant established a prima facie case that the respondents' conduct amounted to the taking of action with intent to coerce or apply undue pressure to achieve an industrial agreement, contrary to s 44(1) of the BCII Act, thus justifying urgent interim injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted pending further hearing

Orders

  • Until 4:30pm on 12 February 2009, respondents are restrained from: preventing or hindering access to the Hyde Street Depot site; counselling or procuring persons not to enter the site or not to work; placing or leaving vehicles or apparatus within 100 metres of any site entrance; attending or organising presence...
  • Further hearing of applicant's claim for interim relief adjourned to 10.15am on 12 February 2009.