Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (The Palmerston Police Station Case) [2021] FCAFC 7

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (The Palmerston Police Station Case) [2021] FCAFC 7

The penalties imposed on the union were not manifestly excessive. Differences in penalties reflected organisational responsibility, recidivism, and deterrence. The primary judge did not err in applying course of conduct or parity principles, nor did he penalise afresh for prior contraventions.

Parties
Appellant: Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union; First Respondent: Australian Building and Construction Commissioner; Second Respondent: Arturo Menon; Third Respondent: Paul Taylor; Fourth Respondent: Mr Roland Cummins
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Civil Penalties, Right of Entry, Parity Principle, Course of Conduct, Deterrence
Industrial Law Employment Law Civil Penalties Right of Entry Parity Principle Course of Conduct Deterrence

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 20
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union

Appellant

Australian Building and Construction Commissioner

First Respondent

Arturo Menon

Second Respondent

Paul Taylor

Third Respondent

Mr Roland Cummins

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether penalties imposed on the union were manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether reliance on appellant’s history of contraventions indicated a miscarriage of sentencing discretion
  3. 3 Whether primary judge misapplied the parity principle

Ratio Decidendi

The penalties imposed on the union were not manifestly excessive. Differences in penalties reflected organisational responsibility, recidivism, and deterrence. The primary judge did not err in applying course of conduct or parity principles, nor did he penalise afresh for prior contraventions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.