Communication, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing & Allied Services Union of Australia & Ors v Citipower Pty [1997] FCA 607

Communication, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing & Allied Services Union of Australia & Ors v Citipower Pty [1997] FCA 607

The applicants' construction of s 170MU(2)(b) raised a serious issue to be tried, and the balance of convenience favoured the applicants because the individual applicants were suffering ongoing hardship that could not be compensated simply by money, while the respondent was continuing to operate with contractors and could use them for work affected by protected action. Because serious issues were raised, the respondent's motion to dismiss for no reasonable cause of action also failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 July 1997
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 170 NF Workplace Relations Act 1996 Seeking a Penalty for Alleged Contravention of S 170 Mu, With Interlocutory Injunction Motion / Interlocutory Motions: Applicants' Notice of Motion for Injunction and Respondent's Notice of Motion to Dismiss for No Reasonable Cause of Action
Outcome
Respondent's notice of motion dismissed; interlocutory injunction granted pending final determination or further order.
Legal Topics
['protected Industrial Action' 'work Bans' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'serious Issue to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 S 170 Mu']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['protected Industrial Action' 'work Bans' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'serious Issue to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 S 170 Mu']

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

Application Under S 170 NF Workplace Relations Act 1996 Seeking a Penalty for Alleged Contravention of S 170 Mu, With Interlocutory Injunction Motion / Interlocutory Motions: Applicants' Notice of Motion for Injunction and Respondent's Notice of Motion to Dismiss for No Reasonable Cause of Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a serious issue to be tried as to whether the respondent contravened s 170MU of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 by refusing to allow employees to perform work wholly or partly because they proposed to engage in or had engaged in protected industrial action.' 'Whether s 170MU(2)(b) applied so that s 170MU(1) did not apply on the facts of the case.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting an interlocutory injunction pending final determination.' 'Whether the application should be dismissed as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' construction of s 170MU(2)(b) raised a serious issue to be tried, and the balance of convenience favoured the applicants because the individual applicants were suffering ongoing hardship that could not be compensated simply by money, while the respondent was continuing to operate with contractors and could use them for work affected by protected action. Because serious issues were raised, the respondent's motion to dismiss for no reasonable cause of action also failed.

Court Disposition

Respondent's notice of motion dismissed; interlocutory injunction granted pending final determination or further order.

Orders

  • ["The respondent's notice of motion of 27 June 1997 be dismissed." 'Upon the usual undertaking as to damages being given by the applicants, pending the final determination of the application or further order the respondent refrain by itself, its servants or agents from contravening s 170MU Workplace Relations Act...