BHP Steel Ltd v Automotive Foods Metals Engineering Printing and Kindred Industries Union [2002] FCA 719

BHP Steel Ltd v Automotive Foods Metals Engineering Printing and Kindred Industries Union [2002] FCA 719

A short interlocutory injunction was warranted because there was a triable issue of coercive industrial action, obstruction or besetting was not protected industrial action under s 170ML(2)(a), there was prima facie evidence of involvement by the second respondent union, and the applicant was suffering substantial real loss so that the balance of convenience favoured relief despite the respondents' limited time to respond.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted until 4.30 pm on 23 May 2002 or further order; further hearing adjourned.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'picketing' 'industrial Action' 'workplace Agreements' 'balance of Convenience']
['industrial Law'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'picketing' 'industrial Action' 'workplace Agreements' 'balance of Convenience']

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 for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a triable issue that industrial action was being taken or threatened with intent to coerce another person to agree or not agree to the making, varying or terminating of a workplace agreement.' 'Whether a picket taking the form of obstruction or besetting was protected industrial action under s 170ML(2)(a) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).' 'Whether there was evidence that the union itself, as distinct from its members, was involved in the picketing.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting a short interlocutory injunction.']

Ratio Decidendi

A short interlocutory injunction was warranted because there was a triable issue of coercive industrial action, obstruction or besetting was not protected industrial action under s 170ML(2)(a), there was prima facie evidence of involvement by the second respondent union, and the applicant was suffering substantial real loss so that the balance of convenience favoured relief despite the respondents' limited time to respond.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted until 4.30 pm on 23 May 2002 or further order; further hearing adjourned.

Orders

  • ['Until 4.30 pm on 23 May 2002 or further order the first and second respondents, whether by their officers, agents or howsoever otherwise be restrained from organising or continuing or threatening to organise or otherwise being involved in physical obstruction or physical impediment to the free movement of goods,...