CFMEU v Master Builders' Association of Victoria (No 2) [2000] FCA 169

CFMEU v Master Builders' Association of Victoria (No 2) [2000] FCA 169

The respondents’ conduct, namely banning the working of overtime by employees pursuant to the notices issued, constitutes a 'lock out' within s 170ML(3) and (4) and is therefore protected action under s 170MT of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). This protection does not require that the employer be under a contractual obligation to provide overtime; it suffices that the employer has prevented employees from performing work which, if offered and performed, would be under their contracts of employment.

Parties
Applicant: Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union; First Respondent: Master Builders' Association of Victoria; Second Respondent: Becton Corporation Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Construction Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd; Fourth Respondent: Kane Constructions Pty Ltd; Fifth Respondent: Hooker Cockram Limited; Sixth Respondent: LU Simon Builders Pty Ltd; Seventh Respondent: Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd; Eighth Respondent: Galvin Construction Pty Ltd; Ninth Respondent: Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief / Determination of Separate Question Prior to Final Hearing
Outcome
Separate question answered in favour of respondents; their conduct was protected action.
Legal Topics
Protected Industrial Action, Lock Outs, Interpretation of Workplace Relations Act 1996 Provisions, Overtime Bans
Industrial Law Protected Industrial Action Lock Outs Interpretation of Workplace Relations Act 1996 Provisions Overtime Bans

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union

Applicant

Master Builders' Association of Victoria

First Respondent

Becton Corporation Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Construction Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Kane Constructions Pty Ltd

Fourth Respondent

Hooker Cockram Limited

Fifth Respondent

LU Simon Builders Pty Ltd

Sixth Respondent

Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd

Seventh Respondent

Galvin Construction Pty Ltd

Eighth Respondent

Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd

Ninth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief / Determination of Separate Question Prior to Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents’ conduct pursuant to the relevant notices was protected action under s 170MT of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)
  2. 2 The proper construction of 'lock out' as used in s 170ML(3) and (4) of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents’ conduct, namely banning the working of overtime by employees pursuant to the notices issued, constitutes a 'lock out' within s 170ML(3) and (4) and is therefore protected action under s 170MT of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). This protection does not require that the employer be under a contractual obligation to provide overtime; it suffices that the employer has prevented employees from performing work which, if offered and performed, would be under their contracts of employment.

Court Disposition

Separate question answered in favour of respondents; their conduct was protected action.

Orders

  • Question set down for separate determination answered 'Yes': the respondents’ conduct is protected action under s 170MT of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).
  • A directions hearing be held at 9:30 am on 21 March 2000 for consequential orders and directions.