Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Ravbar (No 2) [2019] FCA 522

Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Ravbar (No 2) [2019] FCA 522

The CFMMEU's two s 343 contraventions were not part of a common course of conduct because the Ravbar Direction and the Sutherland Conduct, although sharing the ultimate purpose of coercing Universal Cranes to enter into an enterprise agreement, were distinct and separate in time, place and character. The contraventions were serious but in the moderate range, having regard to their deliberate and pre-planned nature, the involvement of CFMMEU organisers, inferred loss or disadvantage to Universal Cranes, and the isolated and short-lived nature of the incident. The CFMMEU's recidivism justified significant specific and general deterrence, but not maximum penalties, while Mr Ravbar and Mr...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Penalty Proceeding for Contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Penalty Judgment After Liability Judgment
Outcome
Penalties imposed on the first respondent, third respondent and fifth respondent for contraventions of s 343 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
Legal Topics
['civil Penalties' 'coercion' 'workplace Rights' 'adverse Action' 'discrimination by Industrial Association' 'course of Conduct Principle' 'specific and General Deterrence']
['industrial Law' 'employment and Industrial Relations'] ['civil Penalties' 'coercion' 'workplace Rights' 'adverse Action' 'discrimination by Industrial Association' 'course of Conduct Principle' 'specific and General Deterrence']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Penalty Proceeding for Contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Penalty Judgment After Liability Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether two penalties or two penalties with a notional maximum of one should be imposed on the CFMMEU for each contravention of s 343 based on the conduct of Mr Ravbar and Mr Sutherland.' "How the CFMMEU's history of contraventions should be taken into account in assessing penalty." 'What factors should be taken into account when assessing the objective seriousness or gravity of the contravening conduct.' 'What penalties should be imposed on Mr Ravbar, Mr Sutherland and the CFMMEU.']

Ratio Decidendi

The CFMMEU's two s 343 contraventions were not part of a common course of conduct because the Ravbar Direction and the Sutherland Conduct, although sharing the ultimate purpose of coercing Universal Cranes to enter into an enterprise agreement, were distinct and separate in time, place and character. The contraventions were serious but in the moderate range, having regard to their deliberate and pre-planned nature, the involvement of CFMMEU organisers, inferred loss or disadvantage to Universal Cranes, and the isolated and short-lived nature of the incident. The CFMMEU's recidivism justified significant specific and general deterrence, but not maximum penalties, while Mr Ravbar and Mr...

Court Disposition

Penalties imposed on the first respondent, third respondent and fifth respondent for contraventions of s 343 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Orders

  • ['The first respondent pay a penalty of $5,000 for his contravention of s 343 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).' 'The third respondent pay a penalty of $3,500 for his contravention of s 343 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).' 'The fifth respondent pay a total penalty of $50,000 for its two contraventions of s 343 of...