John Holland Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union [2009] FCA 235

John Holland Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union [2009] FCA 235

The applicant established a prima facie case that the respondents, by organising and taking action such as impeding access to the project office, damaging property, intimidating staff and interfering with applicant's recruitment, acted with intent to coerce the applicant and to apply undue pressure within the meaning of ss 43 and 44 of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth), justifying the grant of interim restraints on such conduct.

Parties
Applicant: John Holland Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union; Second Respondent: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Third Respondent: Mick Powell; Fourth Respondent: Tony Mavromatis; Fifth Respondent: Mick Bull
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory (interim) Injunctions / Interim/interlocutory Determination
Outcome
Interim injunction (interlocutory injunction) granted
Legal Topics
Union Protest, Picketing, Employment Relations, Workplace Agreements, Coercion, Undue Pressure, Building and Construction Industry
Industrial Law Union Protest Picketing Employment Relations Workplace Agreements Coercion Undue Pressure Building and Construction Industry

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 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Holland Pty Ltd

Applicant

Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union

First Respondent

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

Second Respondent

Mick Powell

Third Respondent

Tony Mavromatis

Fourth Respondent

Mick Bull

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory (interim) Injunctions / Interim/interlocutory Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether union protest constituted unlawful coercion under ss 43 and 44 of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether intent of protestors was to influence employment and workplace agreements against the applicant
  3. 3 Whether actions amounted to application of undue pressure under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant established a prima facie case that the respondents, by organising and taking action such as impeding access to the project office, damaging property, intimidating staff and interfering with applicant's recruitment, acted with intent to coerce the applicant and to apply undue pressure within the meaning of ss 43 and 44 of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth), justifying the grant of interim restraints on such conduct.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction (interlocutory injunction) granted

Orders

  • Pending the hearing and determination of this proceeding or further order, the first, second, third and fourth respondents are restrained from (a) preventing, hindering or impeding access or approach of any person or vehicle to, or egress from, the applicant's project office; (b) counselling or persuading any person...
  • Liberty to apply.