Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union, NSW Branch v Metro Trains Sydney Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 546

Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union, NSW Branch v Metro Trains Sydney Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 546

There is a serious question to be tried as to whether the termination of the second applicant's employment constituted adverse action for reasons including union membership or activities, or the exercise of workplace rights, but the balance of convenience does not favour interlocutory reinstatement when the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Interim Injunction Prior to Final Hearing
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction refused, trial to be expedited
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'adverse Action' 'interim Injunction' 'union Activities' 'workplace Rights']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['termination of Employment' 'adverse Action' 'interim Injunction' 'union Activities' 'workplace Rights']

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

Interlocutory Application / Application for Interim Injunction Prior to Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the termination of the second applicant's employment constituted adverse action under the Fair Work Act 2009 due to union activity or exercise of workplace rights" 'Whether there was a serious question to be tried justifying interlocutory relief' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting interlocutory reinstatement']

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious question to be tried as to whether the termination of the second applicant's employment constituted adverse action for reasons including union membership or activities, or the exercise of workplace rights, but the balance of convenience does not favour interlocutory reinstatement when the respondent has undertaken to pay the applicant's wages pending an expedited trial.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction refused, trial to be expedited

Orders

  • ['On the respondent giving an undertaking to pay the second applicant the wages that he would have received pending a trial in July 2019, the application for an interim injunction is refused.']