CPB Contractors Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union [2024] FCA 459

CPB Contractors Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union [2024] FCA 459

CPB failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of contravention of s 462 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The hearsay evidence from unnamed employees was inadmissible under s 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), and would in any event have been excluded under s 135 because its probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to the Union Parties. The only admissible evidence, the Union text message, was properly construed as providing information and advice and making a request, not as a direction that hindered or obstructed the ballot. The balance of convenience also did not favour interlocutory injunctions, because no substantial detriment from counting the ballots was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Proceeding Concerning Alleged Interference With Protected Action Ballots / Application for Interlocutory Injunctions
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunctions dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protected Action Ballots' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'prima Facie Case' 'balance of Convenience' 'hearsay Evidence in Interlocutory Proceedings' 'evidence of Source Under S 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (cth)' 'exclusion of Evidence Under S 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (cth)']
['industrial Law' 'employment and Industrial Relations' 'evidence'] ['protected Action Ballots' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'prima Facie Case' 'balance of Convenience' 'hearsay Evidence in Interlocutory Proceedings' 'evidence of Source Under S 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (cth)' 'exclusion of Evidence Under S 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (cth)']

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 Proceeding Concerning Alleged Interference With Protected Action Ballots / Application for Interlocutory Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether CPB demonstrated a prima facie case that the Union Parties contravened s 462(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by hindering or obstructing protected action ballots, using intimidation, or compromising secrecy.' 'Whether hearsay evidence from unnamed employees was admissible under s 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).' 'Whether the hearsay evidence should be excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).' "Whether the Union's text message could be construed as a direction that hindered or obstructed the holding of the ballot." 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured interlocutory injunctions restraining completion of the ballots or organising industrial action in reliance on them.']

Ratio Decidendi

CPB failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of contravention of s 462 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The hearsay evidence from unnamed employees was inadmissible under s 75 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), and would in any event have been excluded under s 135 because its probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to the Union Parties. The only admissible evidence, the Union text message, was properly construed as providing information and advice and making a request, not as a direction that hindered or obstructed the ballot. The balance of convenience also did not favour interlocutory injunctions, because no substantial detriment from counting the ballots was...

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunctions dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for the interlocutory orders set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Originating Application filed on 12 April 2024 be dismissed." 'Order 1 of the orders made by Justice Collier on 12 April 2024 has ceased to have effect.']