Cahill v Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 196

Cahill v Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 196

There is a serious question to be tried as to whether the union took action with intent to coerce the employer to employ certain persons and allocate responsibilities, and the balance of convenience strongly favours the grant of interlocutory injunctive relief to restrain the union from engaging in the alleged conduct, given the significant losses and disruption likely to occur absent relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted (in part) against the first respondent (the union)
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'unlawful Industrial Action' 'coercion in Employment' 'picketing' 'building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (cth)' 'balance of Convenience']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'unlawful Industrial Action' 'coercion in Employment' 'picketing' 'building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (cth)' '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

Interlocutory Application / Application for Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there is a serious question to be tried as to contraventions of ss 38 and 43 of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth)' 'Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of interlocutory injunctions' 'Whether actions constituted unlawful industrial action and coercion as defined by the Act']

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious question to be tried as to whether the union took action with intent to coerce the employer to employ certain persons and allocate responsibilities, and the balance of convenience strongly favours the grant of interlocutory injunctive relief to restrain the union from engaging in the alleged conduct, given the significant losses and disruption likely to occur absent relief.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted (in part) against the first respondent (the union)

Orders

  • ['The first respondent is restrained from advising, encouraging, inciting or preventing crane operators from providing cranes or services at the site.' 'The first respondent is restrained from organising, encouraging, assisting or participating in a picket line at the entry or exit of the site and from impeding...