Alfred v Wakelin (No 4) [2009] FCA 267
Given the close relationship and joint liability of the unions, penalties for contraventions of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act are apportioned equally; further penalties for breaches of the Workplace Relations Act by the national union are adjusted for totality to reflect proportionate responsibility and overlapping conduct. A moderate, not high-end, penalty is justified, and the unions' factual circumstances and prior records are considered. Individual penalty for delegate Joseph O'Connor is set similarly with reduction for totality.
- Parties
- Applicant: Gregory Charles Alfred; First Respondent: Robert Wakelin; Second Respondent: Charles Abela; Third Respondent: Mark Batzloff; Fourth Respondent: Robert Jones; Fifth Respondent: Joseph O'Connor; Sixth Respondent: The Australian Workers' Union; Seventh Respondent: The Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales; Eighth Respondent: Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union; Ninth Respondent: Construction Forestry, Mining & Energy Industrial Union of Employees, Queensland; Tenth Respondent: Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders' Labourers Federation (Queensland Branch) Union of Employees; Eleventh Respondent: Federated Engine Drivers' and Firemens' Association of Queensland, Union of Employees
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 26 March 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Industrial Penalty Proceeding / Determination of Penalties Following Liability Findings
- Outcome
- Penalties imposed on Joseph O'Connor, the Australian Workers' Union, and the Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales for statutory contraventions.
- Legal Topics
- Unlawful Industrial Action, Penalties, Workplace Relations, Trade Union Responsibility, Building and Construction Industry
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gregory Charles Alfred
Applicant
Robert Wakelin
First Respondent
Charles Abela
Second Respondent
Mark Batzloff
Third Respondent
Robert Jones
Fourth Respondent
Joseph O'Connor
Fifth Respondent
The Australian Workers' Union
Sixth Respondent
The Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales
Seventh Respondent
Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union
Eighth Respondent
Construction Forestry, Mining & Energy Industrial Union of Employees, Queensland
Ninth Respondent
Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders' Labourers Federation (Queensland Branch) Union of Employees
Tenth Respondent
Federated Engine Drivers' and Firemens' Association of Queensland, Union of Employees
Eleventh Respondent
Procedural Posture
Industrial Penalty Proceeding / Determination of Penalties Following Liability Findings
Legal Issues
- 1 Appropriate penalties for unlawful industrial action
- 2 Application of totality principle to penalties
- 3 Attribution of liability to unions for actions of delegates
Ratio Decidendi
Given the close relationship and joint liability of the unions, penalties for contraventions of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act are apportioned equally; further penalties for breaches of the Workplace Relations Act by the national union are adjusted for totality to reflect proportionate responsibility and overlapping conduct. A moderate, not high-end, penalty is justified, and the unions' factual circumstances and prior records are considered. Individual penalty for delegate Joseph O'Connor is set similarly with reduction for totality.
Court Disposition
Penalties imposed on Joseph O'Connor, the Australian Workers' Union, and the Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales for statutory contraventions.
Orders
- Joseph O'Connor to pay penalties: $6,500 for October 2005 and $2,500 for November 2005.
- The Australian Workers' Union to pay penalties: $20,000 for October 2005 and $8,000 for November 2005.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment