Williams v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union [2010] FCA 754

Williams v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union [2010] FCA 754

The unions and organisers engaged in unlawful industrial action and coercion, in concerted, deliberate and coordinated conduct, with intent to pressure John Holland and its contractors to employ dismissed employees and make union-supported industrial agreements, in contravention of ss 38, 43 and 44 BCII Act. Agreed penalties are within appropriate range and should be imposed as deterrent and reflection of gravity of coordinated conduct.

Parties
Applicant: Andrew Williams; First Respondent: Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union; Second Respondent: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Third Respondent: Mick Powell; Fourth Respondent: Tony Mavromatis; Fifth Respondent: Gareth Stephenson; Sixth Respondent: Julio Pizarro
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Penalty Proceeding / Final Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Application for penalties and costs granted; other relief dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unlawful Industrial Action, Coercion in Industrial Disputes, Picketing, Protesting and Bans in Construction Industry, Penalties Under Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act, Representation in Workplace Agreements
Industrial Law Unlawful Industrial Action Coercion in Industrial Disputes Picketing, Protesting and Bans in Construction Industry Penalties Under Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act Representation in Workplace Agreements

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 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Williams

Applicant

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

First Respondent

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

Second Respondent

Mick Powell

Third Respondent

Tony Mavromatis

Fourth Respondent

Gareth Stephenson

Fifth Respondent

Julio Pizarro

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Penalty Proceeding / Final Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether employees of construction subcontractor engaged in unlawful industrial action under s 38 BCII Act
  2. 2 Whether union officers authorised or counselled unlawful action
  3. 3 Whether union organisers took action to coerce employer to make industrial agreements or employ dismissed workers under ss 43/44 BCII Act

Ratio Decidendi

The unions and organisers engaged in unlawful industrial action and coercion, in concerted, deliberate and coordinated conduct, with intent to pressure John Holland and its contractors to employ dismissed employees and make union-supported industrial agreements, in contravention of ss 38, 43 and 44 BCII Act. Agreed penalties are within appropriate range and should be imposed as deterrent and reflection of gravity of coordinated conduct.

Court Disposition

Application for penalties and costs granted; other relief dismissed.

Orders

  • Penalties imposed on respondent unions and organisers for contraventions of Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth) ss 38, 43, 44 as set out in tables in the reasons and orders.
  • Penalties to be paid to the Consolidated Revenue Fund on or before 10 September 2010.