Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1389

Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1389

While subcl 16.2 had effect there was no actual reduction of hands within the meaning of that provision because no terminations of service occurred. The company decided in February 1998 to reduce its workforce, delayed terminations until it was legally free to use merit selection, and planned a merit-selection process whose legally significant effects occurred only when terminations were made after subcl 16.2 ceased to have effect. The company therefore did not contravene the award, and the relief sought was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 October 1998
Procedural Posture
Application for Interpretation of an Award / Reasons for Judgment and Orders
Outcome
The relief sought in the application was refused and no order was made as to costs.
Legal Topics
['award Interpretation' 'redundancy' 'reduction of Hands' 'last on, First Off Principle' 'seniority Selection' 'merit Selection' 'workforce Reduction']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['award Interpretation' 'redundancy' 'reduction of Hands' 'last On, First Off Principle' 'seniority Selection' 'merit Selection' 'workforce Reduction']

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 for Interpretation of an Award / Reasons for Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether subcl 16.2 of the Coal Mining (Production and Engineering) Consolidated Award 1997 required a workforce reduction to be regulated by the last-on, first-off principle where the employer decided to reduce staff while the provision operated but actual terminations occurred after it ceased to operate.' 'Whether steps taken before actual terminations, including planning and a merit-selection process, had to be governed by the seniority principle in subcl 16.2.']

Ratio Decidendi

While subcl 16.2 had effect there was no actual reduction of hands within the meaning of that provision because no terminations of service occurred. The company decided in February 1998 to reduce its workforce, delayed terminations until it was legally free to use merit selection, and planned a merit-selection process whose legally significant effects occurred only when terminations were made after subcl 16.2 ceased to have effect. The company therefore did not contravene the award, and the relief sought was refused.

Court Disposition

The relief sought in the application was refused and no order was made as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The relief sought in the application is refused.' 'No order as to costs.']