Hamberger v Construction Forestry, Mining & Energy Union [2000] FCA 1924

Hamberger v Construction Forestry, Mining & Energy Union [2000] FCA 1924

Hanna, acting in his capacity as an officer of the BLF, threatened that unless Poppi, Thinee and Thomas joined the union, other workers on site would be procured to withdraw labour and close down the site so that they could not work. That was a threat of industrial action against eligible persons with intent to...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Proceeding Alleging Contraventions of Part XA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Judgment on Liability; Penalty Adjourned
Outcome
Declarations made against the second and fourth respondents for contravention of s 298S(2)(c); proceedings against the first and third respondents dismissed; penalty to be determined later.
Legal Topics
['freedom of Association' 'industrial Associations' 'independent Contractors' 'threatened Industrial Action' 'union Membership Coercion' 'onus and Standard of Proof' 'conduct of Officer Attributed to Industrial Association' 'constitutional Validity of Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Provisions']
['industrial Law' 'constitutional Law'] ['freedom of Association' 'industrial Associations' 'independent Contractors' 'threatened Industrial Action' 'union Membership Coercion' 'onus and Standard of Proof' 'conduct of Officer Attributed to Industrial Association' 'constitutional Validity of Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Provisions']

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 Alleging Contraventions of Part XA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Judgment on Liability; Penalty Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Hanna threatened industrial action against eligible independent contractors with intent to coerce them to join an industrial association contrary to s 298S(2)(c) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).' "Whether Hanna's conduct contravened s 298S(2)(b) or s 298P(3) by threatening industrial action against, or advising, encouraging or inciting, an employer." "Whether Ravbar's conduct on 4 and 5 March 1999 contravened s 298S(2)(a) by advising, encouraging or inciting Leighton to take discriminatory action against Thinee and Thomas." "Whether Hanna's conduct was, by s 298B(2), conduct of the BLF or the CFMEU." 'Whether s 298B(2) and s 298S of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) were constitutionally valid.']

Ratio Decidendi

Hanna, acting in his capacity as an officer of the BLF, threatened that unless Poppi, Thinee and Thomas joined the union, other workers on site would be procured to withdraw labour and close down the site so that they could not work. That was a threat of industrial action against eligible persons with intent to coerce them to join an industrial association, contravening s 298S(2)(c) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). By s 298B(2), Hanna's conduct was the conduct of the BLF. The claims against Ravbar and the CFMEU failed because the pleaded conduct did not amount to advice, encouragement or incitement to take discriminatory action as defined, and the claims under ss 298S(2)(b) and...

Court Disposition

Declarations made against the second and fourth respondents for contravention of s 298S(2)(c); proceedings against the first and third respondents dismissed; penalty to be determined later.

Orders

  • ['The Court declares that the second and fourth respondents, on 4 March 1999, contravened s 298S(2)(c) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) in that they threatened to take industrial action against David John Poppi, Ronald Shane Thinee and Roland Michael Thomas, eligible persons within the meaning of s 298S(1)...