Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Oaky Creek Coal Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1465

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Oaky Creek Coal Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1465

The respondent acted within clause 32 of the enterprise agreement by exercising judgment in retaining the number of contractors it determined were necessary to maintain the skills required for efficient and effective operation. No breach of the agreement was demonstrated or likely to be demonstrated at trial, and the applicant's prospects of success were considered very low. Accordingly, interlocutory relief was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Interlocutory Relief – Determination/refusal
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief refused
Legal Topics
['redundancy' 'enterprise Agreements' 'interlocutory Relief' 'retrenchment Procedures']
['employment Law'] ['redundancy' 'enterprise Agreements' 'interlocutory Relief' 'retrenchment Procedures']

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

Interlocutory Application / Application for Interlocutory Relief – Determination/refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent breached clause 32 of the enterprise agreement in relation to the retrenchment process and selection of employees for redundancy' 'Whether interlocutory relief should be granted to prevent the retrenchment of certain employees']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent acted within clause 32 of the enterprise agreement by exercising judgment in retaining the number of contractors it determined were necessary to maintain the skills required for efficient and effective operation. No breach of the agreement was demonstrated or likely to be demonstrated at trial, and the applicant's prospects of success were considered very low. Accordingly, interlocutory relief was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief refused

Orders

  • ['The application for interlocutory relief filed 30 July 2013 is refused.']