Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (the Webb Dock case) [2017] FCA 62

Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (the Webb Dock case) [2017] FCA 62

The respondents, including union officers acting in the course of employment, organised and controlled blockades at a construction site, preventing access to contractors and employees in order to pressure contractors to comply with union demands. These were deliberate, wilful actions amounting to adverse action and coercion because of and for the purpose of engaging in industrial activity, in breach of multiple provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). As the conduct was admitted and without mitigating circumstances, substantial penalties are required to deter repetition, particularly in view of the union’s significant prior record.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Building and Construction Commissioner; First Respondent: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Second Respondent: Joe Myles; Third Respondent: Adam Hall
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Penalty Proceeding / Judgment and Orders After Admissions on Agreed Facts
Outcome
Declarations made of contravention by the individual respondents and union; pecuniary penalties imposed; application otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
Adverse Action, Coercion, Industrial Activity, Civil Penalties, Fair Work Act Enforcement
Industrial Law Employment Law Adverse Action Coercion Industrial Activity Civil Penalties Fair Work Act Enforcement

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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Building and Construction Commissioner

Applicant

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

First Respondent

Joe Myles

Second Respondent

Adam Hall

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Penalty Proceeding / Judgment and Orders After Admissions on Agreed Facts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents took adverse action against contractors because of industrial activity or to coerce them to engage in industrial activity contrary to Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 340, 343, 346, 348
  2. 2 Appropriate penalties considering need for deterrence and prior record

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents, including union officers acting in the course of employment, organised and controlled blockades at a construction site, preventing access to contractors and employees in order to pressure contractors to comply with union demands. These were deliberate, wilful actions amounting to adverse action and coercion because of and for the purpose of engaging in industrial activity, in breach of multiple provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). As the conduct was admitted and without mitigating circumstances, substantial penalties are required to deter repetition, particularly in view of the union’s significant prior record.

Court Disposition

Declarations made of contravention by the individual respondents and union; pecuniary penalties imposed; application otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • Second respondent (Joe Myles) to pay $7,500 penalty for contravention of s 348.
  • First respondent (CFMEU) to pay $42,000 penalty for conduct of second respondent (as per Declaration 1).