Australian Workers Union v Stegbar Australia Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 367

Australian Workers Union v Stegbar Australia Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 367

Stegbar's lockout was not protected action because it failed to give written notice of the intended lockout to the Australian Workers' Union as required by s 170MO(3)(a); the shop steward had no express, implied or ostensible authority to accept service of that notice on the union's behalf. Although notice to absent employees was sufficiently given when Mr Routley distributed the notice on Stegbar's behalf, the failure to notify the union meant the lockout injured employees or altered their position to their prejudice in breach of s 170MU(1). Section 170MU(2)(b) did not apply because Stegbar had no asserted common law, contractual, customary or statutory right to stand down employees...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Application Alleging Contraventions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Arising From a Lockout, Seeking Penalties and Compensation / Reasons for Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
The applicant established a contravention of s 170MU(1), but not s 170NC. No penalty was imposed. Compensation equivalent to lost pay was to be ordered, with short minutes to be brought in within 14 days.
Legal Topics
['lockout' 'protected Industrial Action' 'notice of Lockout' 'service on Union' 'shop Steward Authority' 'compensation for Unpaid Wages' 'civil Penalties']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['lockout' 'protected Industrial Action' 'notice of Lockout' 'service on Union' 'shop Steward Authority' 'compensation for Unpaid Wages' '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

Industrial Law Application Alleging Contraventions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Arising From a Lockout, Seeking Penalties and Compensation / Reasons for Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Stegbar's lockout was protected action because it gave the notices required by s 170MO of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)." "Whether giving the lockout notice to the shop steward, Mr Routley, constituted written notice to the Australian Workers' Union under s 170MO(3)(a)." 'Whether Stegbar took reasonable steps to notify affected employees of the intended lockout under s 170MO(3)(b).' 'Whether the lockout contravened s 170MU(1) by injuring employees or altering their position to their prejudice because they engaged in protected action.' 'Whether s 170MU(2)(b) protected Stegbar because it was permitted at common law to refuse to pay employees who had not performed work as directed.' 'Whether Stegbar contravened s 170NC by taking industrial action with intent to coerce the union to make a new certified agreement.' 'Whether penalties and compensation should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

Stegbar's lockout was not protected action because it failed to give written notice of the intended lockout to the Australian Workers' Union as required by s 170MO(3)(a); the shop steward had no express, implied or ostensible authority to accept service of that notice on the union's behalf. Although notice to absent employees was sufficiently given when Mr Routley distributed the notice on Stegbar's behalf, the failure to notify the union meant the lockout injured employees or altered their position to their prejudice in breach of s 170MU(1). Section 170MU(2)(b) did not apply because Stegbar had no asserted common law, contractual, customary or statutory right to stand down employees...

Court Disposition

The applicant established a contravention of s 170MU(1), but not s 170NC. No penalty was imposed. Compensation equivalent to lost pay was to be ordered, with short minutes to be brought in within 14 days.

Orders

  • ["The Australian Workers' Union should bring in short minutes of orders within 14 days to give effect to the reasons." 'Compensation equivalent to lost pay should be ordered for the locked out employees.' 'No penalty was imposed.']