Fair Work Ombudsman v Maritime Union of Australia [2012] FCA 1521

Fair Work Ombudsman v Maritime Union of Australia [2012] FCA 1521

The Court imposed the agreed penalties because the admitted facts established that the strike was industrial action during the operation of the Agreement and before its nominal expiry date, that the second and third respondents organised it in contravention of s 494(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), and that their conduct was attributable to the first respondent under s 826(2). Having considered the relevant penalty factors, including the nature of the strike, disruption caused, absence of prior relevant contraventions, deliberate conduct, limited senior involvement, absence of contrition, late cooperation, and the need for specific and general deterrence, the Court accepted...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Penalty Proceeding for Contraventions of S 494(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Penalty Determination After Respondents Admitted Liability and Parties Submitted Agreed Proposed Penalties
Outcome
Monetary penalties imposed on all three respondents; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Industrial Action' 'civil Penalties' 'agreed Penalties' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) S 494(1)' 'deterrence']
['industrial Law' 'fair Work'] ['unlawful Industrial Action' 'civil Penalties' 'agreed Penalties' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) S 494(1)' 'deterrence']

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

Civil Penalty Proceeding for Contraventions of S 494(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Penalty Determination After Respondents Admitted Liability and Parties Submitted Agreed Proposed Penalties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the strike constituted industrial action in contravention of s 494(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).' 'Whether the second and third respondents organised the strike in contravention of s 494(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).' 'Whether the conduct of the second and third respondents was attributable to the first respondent under s 826(2) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).' 'Whether the agreed proposed penalties were appropriate and within the permissible range.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court imposed the agreed penalties because the admitted facts established that the strike was industrial action during the operation of the Agreement and before its nominal expiry date, that the second and third respondents organised it in contravention of s 494(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), and that their conduct was attributable to the first respondent under s 826(2). Having considered the relevant penalty factors, including the nature of the strike, disruption caused, absence of prior relevant contraventions, deliberate conduct, limited senior involvement, absence of contrition, late cooperation, and the need for specific and general deterrence, the Court accepted...

Court Disposition

Monetary penalties imposed on all three respondents; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['A monetary penalty of $13,200 be imposed pursuant to s 494(5) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) on the first respondent for organising a 24 hour strike at the DP World site in Fremantle, Western Australia on 19 May 2009 in contravention of s 494(1) of the WR Act.' 'A monetary penalty of $2,640 be imposed...