Giacci Bros Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (Mining & Energy Division) [2012] FCA 1525

Giacci Bros Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (Mining & Energy Division) [2012] FCA 1525

The applicant failed to establish a sufficiently strong prima facie case that Commissioner Roberts committed jurisdictional error in construing the union’s eligibility rules, and the balance of convenience did not justify the grant of interlocutory injunctions prohibiting the protected action ballot; section 606(3) of the Fair Work Act further weighed against granting relief.

Parties
Applicant: Giacci Bros Pty Ltd (ACN 008 708 361); First Respondent: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (Mining & Energy Division), Northern District Branch; Second Respondent: Australian Electoral Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction in Industrial Relations / Determination of Application for Interlocutory and Substantive Relief
Outcome
Application and interlocutory application dismissed with costs to be paid by the applicant to the first respondent.
Legal Topics
Application for Interlocutory Injunction, Protected Action Ballot, Union Membership Eligibility, Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience
Industrial Law Practice and Procedure Application for Interlocutory Injunction Protected Action Ballot Union Membership Eligibility Prima Facie Case Balance of Convenience

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Giacci Bros Pty Ltd (ACN 008 708 361)

Applicant

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (Mining & Energy Division), Northern District Branch

First Respondent

Australian Electoral Commission

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction in Industrial Relations / Determination of Application for Interlocutory and Substantive Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a prima facie case exists that Commissioner Roberts made a jurisdictional error in construing union rules
  2. 2 Whether affected employees were eligible for union membership under CFMEU rules
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours an injunction to prohibit the ballot

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish a sufficiently strong prima facie case that Commissioner Roberts committed jurisdictional error in construing the union’s eligibility rules, and the balance of convenience did not justify the grant of interlocutory injunctions prohibiting the protected action ballot; section 606(3) of the Fair Work Act further weighed against granting relief.

Court Disposition

Application and interlocutory application dismissed with costs to be paid by the applicant to the first respondent.

Orders

  • The application including the interlocutory application be dismissed.
  • The applicant to pay the costs of the first respondent to be taxed if not agreed.