Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2019] FCA 1654

Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2019] FCA 1654

Both Mr Pattinson and the Union, by falsely representing an obligation to join a union to two employees, contravened s 349(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The Union's history of similar contraventions and ongoing implementation of a 'no ticket, no start' policy render the current contraventions very serious and deserving of significant penalties to deter future misconduct. Multiple contraventions arising from a single act were considered under the course of conduct and totality principles, resulting in penalty adjustments. Declaratory relief was unnecessary given the orders made and the reasons provided.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Penalty Proceedings / Judgment After Admissions on Liability and Penalty Hearing
Outcome
Pecuniary penalties imposed; no declaratory relief; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['pecuniary Penalties' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'freedom of Association' 'trade Union Conduct' 'penalty Assessment Principles' 'civil Penalties']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['pecuniary Penalties' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'freedom of Association' 'trade Union Conduct' 'penalty Assessment Principles' 'civil Penalties']

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 Proceedings / Judgment After Admissions on Liability and Penalty Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents contravened s 349(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by making a false or misleading representation about an obligation to engage in industrial activity' "What penalties are appropriate for those contraventions, considering the Union's history of contravention and relevant penalty principles" 'Whether declaratory relief should be granted in addition to penalties']

Ratio Decidendi

Both Mr Pattinson and the Union, by falsely representing an obligation to join a union to two employees, contravened s 349(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The Union's history of similar contraventions and ongoing implementation of a 'no ticket, no start' policy render the current contraventions very serious and deserving of significant penalties to deter future misconduct. Multiple contraventions arising from a single act were considered under the course of conduct and totality principles, resulting in penalty adjustments. Declaratory relief was unnecessary given the orders made and the reasons provided.

Court Disposition

Pecuniary penalties imposed; no declaratory relief; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The first respondent, Kevin Pattinson, pay pecuniary penalties totalling $6,000.00.' 'The second respondent, the Union, pay pecuniary penalties totalling $63,000.00.' 'Penalties payable to the Commonwealth within 28 days.' 'No order as to costs.']