Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2016] FCA 1225

Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2016] FCA 1225

Because the respondents conceded that interlocutory injunctive relief was appropriate, the decisive question was scope. The alleged conduct was serious, uncontested at the interlocutory stage, and directed at Hutchinson Builders sites because they were under the Hutchinson banner rather than because of site-specific issues. Limiting relief to the identified projects would not adequately prevent future contravening conduct at other Hutchinson sites. The applicant's proposed orders, including a safety-related carve out, were sufficiently clear and balanced the respondents' interests with those of workers and third parties. A carve out for protected industrial action under s 408 was not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Fair Work Civil Remedy Proceeding Seeking Penalties, Compensation and Injunctive Relief / Interlocutory Application Concerning the Scope of Injunctive Relief After Interim Orders Had Been Made
Outcome
Interim orders made by Greenwood J were continued until trial with modifications, and interlocutory injunctive relief was granted substantially in the form proposed by the applicant.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunctions' 'fair Work Act Coercion Allegations' 'industrial Action' 'protected Industrial Action' 'union Meetings and Right of Entry' 'occupational Health and Safety Carve Out']

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

Fair Work Civil Remedy Proceeding Seeking Penalties, Compensation and Injunctive Relief / Interlocutory Application Concerning the Scope of Injunctive Relief After Interim Orders Had Been Made

  1. 1 ['What scope of interlocutory injunctive relief should be ordered against the respondents pending final hearing.' 'Whether the injunction should apply to all Hutchinson Builders sites or only the specific projects identified in the evidence.' 'Whether the orders should include a carve out for protected industrial action under s 408 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) or activity excluded from industrial action by s 19(2).' "Whether the applicant's proposed orders appropriately balance the rights and interests of the parties and affected third parties, including workers."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondents conceded that interlocutory injunctive relief was appropriate, the decisive question was scope. The alleged conduct was serious, uncontested at the interlocutory stage, and directed at Hutchinson Builders sites because they were under the Hutchinson banner rather than because of site-specific issues. Limiting relief to the identified projects would not adequately prevent future contravening conduct at other Hutchinson sites. The applicant's proposed orders, including a safety-related carve out, were sufficiently clear and balanced the respondents' interests with those of workers and third parties. A carve out for protected industrial action under s 408 was not...

Court Disposition

Interim orders made by Greenwood J were continued until trial with modifications, and interlocutory injunctive relief was granted substantially in the form proposed by the applicant.

Orders

  • ['Until the hearing and final determination of the proceeding or further order, the first respondent and the second to eighth respondents are restrained from organising, encouraging, directing, counselling, procuring, aiding or assisting in any stoppage, cessation, disruption or interference of paid work at any...