Medcraft, David Samuel & Anor v Federated Engine Drivers & Firemens Assoc of Australasia & Ors [1984] FCA 288

Medcraft, David Samuel & Anor v Federated Engine Drivers & Firemens Assoc of Australasia & Ors [1984] FCA 288

Applicants made out a prima facie case they are not eligible to be members of F.E.D.F.A. as they are independent contractors, not employees. F.E.D.F.A. imposed an industrial ban in contravention of s. 132A(1)(b) of the Act, amounting to discriminatory action because Applicants are not union members. The Court has power under s. 109(1)(b) to enjoin conduct that contravenes the Act where special damage is shown, which here is the Applicants' loss from being denied work. The Applicants are therefore entitled to an interlocutory injunction against F.E.D.F.A.; but not to other forms of relief at this stage.

Parties
Applicant: David Samuel Medcraft; Applicant: Reginald John Jaffray; Firstnamed Respondent: Federated Engine Drivers & Firemen's Association of Australasia (F.E.D.F.A.); Secondnamed Respondent: Australian Timber Workers' Union (A.T.W.U.); Thirdnamed Respondent: Michael Grey; Fourthnamed Respondent: Norman Britton; Fifthnamed Respondents: Brian Sweeney, Philip Poulson, Robert Gillham, Bruce Gibson, Fred Radford; Sixthnamed Respondent: Lloyd Saward; Seventhnamed Respondent: Associated Forest Holdings Pty Ltd (the Company)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 1984
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction and Related Declaratory Relief / Interlocutory Judgment on Application for Injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted in favour of Applicants against F.E.D.F.A. as prayed in a more limited form; remainder of interlocutory relief refused; directions given for early trial.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Independent Contractors, Employee Organisation Membership Eligibility, Ban on Products of Independent Contractors, Power to Grant Injunction Restraining Criminal Offence, Accrued Jurisdiction of the Federal Court, Compatibility of Common Law Actions With Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904
Industrial Law Practice and Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Independent Contractors Employee Organisation Membership Eligibility Ban on Products of Independent Contractors Power to Grant Injunction Restraining Criminal Offence Accrued Jurisdiction of the Federal Court +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Samuel Medcraft

Applicant

Reginald John Jaffray

Applicant

Federated Engine Drivers & Firemen's Association of Australasia (F.E.D.F.A.)

Firstnamed Respondent

Australian Timber Workers' Union (A.T.W.U.)

Secondnamed Respondent

Michael Grey

Thirdnamed Respondent

Norman Britton

Fourthnamed Respondent

Brian Sweeney, Philip Poulson, Robert Gillham, Bruce Gibson, Fred Radford

Fifthnamed Respondents

Lloyd Saward

Sixthnamed Respondent

Associated Forest Holdings Pty Ltd (the Company)

Seventhnamed Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction and Related Declaratory Relief / Interlocutory Judgment on Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the Applicants eligible to be members of the first and/or second Respondents (unions)?
  2. 2 Does the F.E.D.F.A. contravene s. 132A(1)(b) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 by imposing a ban on the Applicants' products?
  3. 3 Can the Federal Court grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the commission of an alleged criminal offence under the Act?

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants made out a prima facie case they are not eligible to be members of F.E.D.F.A. as they are independent contractors, not employees. F.E.D.F.A. imposed an industrial ban in contravention of s. 132A(1)(b) of the Act, amounting to discriminatory action because Applicants are not union members. The Court has power under s. 109(1)(b) to enjoin conduct that contravenes the Act where special damage is shown, which here is the Applicants' loss from being denied work. The Applicants are therefore entitled to an interlocutory injunction against F.E.D.F.A.; but not to other forms of relief at this stage.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted in favour of Applicants against F.E.D.F.A. as prayed in a more limited form; remainder of interlocutory relief refused; directions given for early trial.

Orders

  • F.E.D.F.A., by itself, its servants or agents, restrained from continuing the conduct alleged pending trial.