Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Mirage Industries Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 490

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Mirage Industries Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 490

There was a serious question to be tried that the inclusion of the union's name and the statements in the proposed agreement amounted to false and misleading representations, and the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an interlocutory injunction to restrain the ballot until the issue was decided.

Parties
Applicant: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Respondent: Mirage Industries Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Grant of Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Misleading Representation, Enterprise Agreement, Workplace Rights, Ballot for Approval of Agreement
Industrial Law Interlocutory Injunction Misleading Representation Enterprise Agreement Workplace Rights Ballot for Approval of Agreement

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

Applicant

Mirage Industries Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Grant of Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent made misleading representations contrary to s 345 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by including in a proposed agreement representations that the union was a party to and approved it
  2. 2 Whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to restrain a scheduled ballot for employees to approve an enterprise agreement

Ratio Decidendi

There was a serious question to be tried that the inclusion of the union's name and the statements in the proposed agreement amounted to false and misleading representations, and the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an interlocutory injunction to restrain the ballot until the issue was decided.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted

Orders

  • Until the determination of this application, or further order, the respondent, by itself, its servants or agents refrain from conducting the vote in relation to approval of the proposed agreement, which is MS-2 to the affidavit of Matthew Stewart affirmed on 10 May 2012.
  • The parties participate in a mediation, such mediation to be concluded by 4.00pm on 24 May 2012 and which may be attended, if necessary, by telephone.