Australian Workers Union v BHP Iron-Ore Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 3

Australian Workers Union v BHP Iron-Ore Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 3

Sections 298K, 298L and 298M of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) are valid under the corporations power as they regulate the business relationships of constitutional corporations and employees. BHPIO's offer of workplace agreements was not shown to have been for a prohibited reason related to union membership or award entitlements as required by ss 298K and 298L, nor to constitute inducement contrary to s 298M. The contractual claim fails as the award was not expressly incorporated into individual contracts.

Parties
First Applicant: Australian Workers' Union; Second Applicant: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Third Applicant: Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union; Fourth Applicant: Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia; Fifth Applicant: Transport Workers' Union of Australia; Sixth Applicant: Douglas Stead; Seventh Applicant: Ross Kumeroa; Eighth Applicant: Ian Burtenshaw; Ninth Applicant: Phillip Rooney; Tenth Applicant: Ross Beggs; Respondent: BHP Iron-Ore Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Final Injunctive Relief and Contract Claim / Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Commonwealth Powers Corporations Power, Freedom of Association, Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Ss 298 K, 298 L & 298 M, Industrial Regulation Workplace Agreements, Employment Contracts and Awards
Constitutional Law Industrial Law Employment Law Contracts Commonwealth Powers Corporations Power Freedom of Association Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Ss 298 K, 298 L & 298 M Industrial Regulation Workplace Agreements +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 39 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Workers' Union

First Applicant

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

Second Applicant

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

Third Applicant

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia

Fourth Applicant

Transport Workers' Union of Australia

Fifth Applicant

Douglas Stead

Sixth Applicant

Ross Kumeroa

Seventh Applicant

Ian Burtenshaw

Eighth Applicant

Phillip Rooney

Ninth Applicant

Ross Beggs

Tenth Applicant

BHP Iron-Ore Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Final Injunctive Relief and Contract Claim / Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ss 298K, 298L, 298M of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) are constitutionally valid under the corporations power
  2. 2 Whether offering workplace agreements to employees constituted injuring or prejudicing employees for a prohibited reason or inducement to stop union membership under ss 298K, 298L and 298M
  3. 3 Whether terms of industrial award were incorporated into employees' contracts of employment

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 298K, 298L and 298M of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) are valid under the corporations power as they regulate the business relationships of constitutional corporations and employees. BHPIO's offer of workplace agreements was not shown to have been for a prohibited reason related to union membership or award entitlements as required by ss 298K and 298L, nor to constitute inducement contrary to s 298M. The contractual claim fails as the award was not expressly incorporated into individual contracts.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for final injunctive relief is dismissed.
  • Injunction previously granted discharged.