Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Alfred [2011] FCAFC 13

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Alfred [2011] FCAFC 13

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants did not demonstrate appellable error in the Federal Magistrate's acceptance of Mr Holm's evidence and rejection of Mr Manna's evidence; the appellants conceded that if that finding was not disturbed the appeal against the CFMEU and Mr Manna failed. The New South Wales branch was also liable because Mr Manna was acting as an officer of both associations in a joint union membership enterprise and, in any event, Part 16 applied through s 785(1)(f)(ii) in relation to conduct intended to affect a contractor or prospective contractor of a constitutional corporation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia in Proceedings Alleging Contravention of S 789 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Full Court Appeal From Liability and Penalty Decisions; Appeal on Penalty Not Pressed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['coercion Under S 789 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'intent to Coerce Union Membership' 'liability of State Union Branch Under Part 16 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'appellate Review of Credibility Findings' 'reverse Onus Under S 809 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)']
['industrial Law' 'evidence' 'appellate Procedure'] ['coercion Under S 789 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'intent to Coerce Union Membership' 'liability of State Union Branch Under Part 16 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'appellate Review of Credibility Findings' 'reverse Onus Under S 809 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)']

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

Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia in Proceedings Alleging Contravention of S 789 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Full Court Appeal From Liability and Penalty Decisions; Appeal on Penalty Not Pressed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Federal Magistrate made appellable error in accepting Mr Holm's evidence that Mr Manna threatened him in connection with union membership." 'Whether the evidence established an intent to coerce within s 789 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).' "Whether the New South Wales branch could be liable under Part 16 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) for Mr Manna's conduct." "Whether the appeal should be dismissed where the appellants confined their case to challenging the acceptance of Mr Holm's evidence and did not press the penalty appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants did not demonstrate appellable error in the Federal Magistrate's acceptance of Mr Holm's evidence and rejection of Mr Manna's evidence; the appellants conceded that if that finding was not disturbed the appeal against the CFMEU and Mr Manna failed. The New South Wales branch was also liable because Mr Manna was acting as an officer of both associations in a joint union membership enterprise and, in any event, Part 16 applied through s 785(1)(f)(ii) in relation to conduct intended to affect a contractor or prospective contractor of a constitutional corporation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.']