Fair Work Ombudsman v Roach (The Melbourne Quarter Case) [2023] FCA 781

Fair Work Ombudsman v Roach (The Melbourne Quarter Case) [2023] FCA 781

The deliberate conduct by Mr Roach and by attribution the Union constituted contraventions of s 348 and subs 349(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The penalty for each is assessed primarily for deterrence, with the Union’s history of contraventions warranting a penalty near the maximum, slightly reduced to recognise remedial training. Mr Roach’s penalty is moderated in light of personal circumstances and training.

Parties
Applicant: Fair Work Ombudsman; First Respondent: Jason Roach; Second Respondent: Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Penalty Proceeding / Penalty and Declarations Determination
Outcome
Declarations made as to contraventions; civil penalties imposed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Civil Penalties, Contraventions of Fair Work Act, Union Conduct, Freedom of Association, Coercion
Industrial Law Employment Law Civil Penalties Contraventions of Fair Work Act Union Conduct Freedom of Association Coercion

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fair Work Ombudsman

Applicant

Jason Roach

First Respondent

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Penalty Proceeding / Penalty and Declarations Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents contravened s 348 and subs 349(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
  2. 2 Appropriate penalties for contravention of civil penalty provisions

Ratio Decidendi

The deliberate conduct by Mr Roach and by attribution the Union constituted contraventions of s 348 and subs 349(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The penalty for each is assessed primarily for deterrence, with the Union’s history of contraventions warranting a penalty near the maximum, slightly reduced to recognise remedial training. Mr Roach’s penalty is moderated in light of personal circumstances and training.

Court Disposition

Declarations made as to contraventions; civil penalties imposed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • First respondent to pay a pecuniary penalty of $5,040 for contravention of s 348 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
  • Second respondent to pay a pecuniary penalty of $55,000 for contravention of s 348 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).