John Holland Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2011] FCA 770

John Holland Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2011] FCA 770

The officials had the prescribed subjective purpose under s 760 when entering the X50 work site, namely to hold discussions with employees they believed were eligible employees who wished to participate in discussions about a possible collective agreement. Section 760 authorised the entry and the subsequent...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Proceeding Concerning Alleged Civil Remedy Contraventions of Ss 767 and 768 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Further Consideration of Matters Remitted to the Primary Judge by the Full Court
Outcome
The applicant's claims for pecuniary penalties against the first, second and third respondents were dismissed; costs were reserved.
Legal Topics
['permit Holder Right of Entry' 'hindering or Obstructing Under S 767 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'misrepresentations About Right of Entry Under S 768 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'civil Remedy Provisions' 'pecuniary Penalties']
['industrial Law' 'workplace Relations' 'right of Entry'] ['permit Holder Right of Entry' 'hindering or Obstructing Under S 767 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'misrepresentations About Right of Entry Under S 768 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'civil Remedy Provisions' 'pecuniary Penalties']

Source-derived case record

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

Industrial Law Proceeding Concerning Alleged Civil Remedy Contraventions of Ss 767 and 768 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Further Consideration of Matters Remitted to the Primary Judge by the Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the union officials entered the X50 work site for the purpose required by s 760 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).' 'Whether the officials, in exercising or seeking to exercise rights under s 760, intentionally hindered or obstructed any person or otherwise acted in an improper manner contrary to s 767(1).' 'Whether the officials intentionally or recklessly misrepresented authorisation under Part 15 contrary to s 768(1).' 'Whether any pecuniary penalty should be imposed if contraventions were established.']

Ratio Decidendi

The officials had the prescribed subjective purpose under s 760 when entering the X50 work site, namely to hold discussions with employees they believed were eligible employees who wished to participate in discussions about a possible collective agreement. Section 760 authorised the entry and the subsequent discussions as an expression of that purpose. The conduct did not amount to intentional hindrance or obstruction of Mr Ingham, nor to acting in an improper manner, and the officials did not intentionally or recklessly misrepresent their authority under Part 15. Applying Briginshaw, no contravention of s 767(1) or s 768(1) was established.

Court Disposition

The applicant's claims for pecuniary penalties against the first, second and third respondents were dismissed; costs were reserved.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's claims for orders for the imposition of a pecuniary penalty upon the first, second and third respondents in respect of contended contraventions of sections 767 and 768 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) are dismissed." 'The costs of and incidental to the further consideration of the matters...