Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v Pacific Coal Ltd [1999] FCA 414

Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v Pacific Coal Ltd [1999] FCA 414

The respondent proved that the proposed November 1998 roster arrangements were adopted for rational operational and efficiency reasons after other roster options were trialed and found wanting, not for the purpose of injuring or prejudicing union members because they had taken industrial action. The Award also provided loadings for afternoon and night shifts, and operating such shifts for operational requirements with payment of loadings did not, without more, bespeak injury or prejudice in employment. Accordingly, s 170MU(1) was not contravened.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Application for Penalties for Alleged Contravening Conduct Under S 170 MU of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Reasons for Judgment After Hearing; Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protected Industrial Action' 'adverse Action Concerning Shift Arrangements' 'certified Agreements' 'civil Penalties' 'workplace Rosters']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['protected Industrial Action' 'adverse Action Concerning Shift Arrangements' 'certified Agreements' 'civil Penalties' 'workplace Rosters']

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

Industrial Law Application for Penalties for Alleged Contravening Conduct Under S 170 MU of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Reasons for Judgment After Hearing; Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's implementation of new shift arrangements injured employees in their employment or altered their position to their prejudice within s 170MU of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)." 'Whether the shift arrangements were implemented wholly or partly because employees were proposing to engage, were engaging in, or had engaged in protected action.' 'Whether the respondent rebutted the presumption in s 170MU(3) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent proved that the proposed November 1998 roster arrangements were adopted for rational operational and efficiency reasons after other roster options were trialed and found wanting, not for the purpose of injuring or prejudicing union members because they had taken industrial action. The Award also provided loadings for afternoon and night shifts, and operating such shifts for operational requirements with payment of loadings did not, without more, bespeak injury or prejudice in employment. Accordingly, s 170MU(1) was not contravened.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']