Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board v United Firefighters' Union of Australia [2005] FCA 1231

Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board v United Firefighters' Union of Australia [2005] FCA 1231

The Commission's s 127 order was an order of the Commission within s 178, so the Court had power to impose penalties for its contravention. The respondents' issue of the two bulletins arose from a single course of conduct and therefore constituted a single breach, but the conduct warranted penalties because the respondents knew what the order required, no stay had been sought, the continuation of the bans was not trivial, and deterrence was required. Marshall was separately liable because the order bound UFU officials personally and he failed to displace the inference that publication of the bulletins and continuation of the bans were principally his decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Proceeding for Penalties for Contravention of an Order of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission Under S 127 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Reasons for Orders as to Penalty After Finding Contraventions and Granting an Injunction
Outcome
Penalties imposed on both respondents, payable to the applicant, with a stay of execution pending the respondents' appeal.
Legal Topics
['contravention of Australian Industrial Relations Commission Order' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) S 127' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) S 178 Penalties' 'industrial Action Bans' 'union Liability' 'personal Liability of Union Official' 'course of Conduct and Single Breach' 'quantum of Penalty']
['industrial Law'] ['contravention of Australian Industrial Relations Commission Order' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) S 127' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) S 178 Penalties' 'industrial Action Bans' 'union Liability' 'personal Liability of Union Official' 'course of Conduct and Single Breach' 'quantum of Penalty']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Industrial Law Proceeding for Penalties for Contravention of an Order of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission Under S 127 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Reasons for Orders as to Penalty After Finding Contraventions and Granting an Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a contravention of an order made by the Commission under s 127 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) is amenable to a pecuniary penalty under s 178 in addition to injunctive relief.' 'Whether the publication of two bulletins constituted more than one breach or a single breach arising out of a course of conduct under s 178(2).' 'What penalty should be imposed on the UFU and on Marshall.' 'Whether Marshall could attract separate personal liability for contravening an order addressed to the UFU and its officials, delegates, employees and agents.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission's s 127 order was an order of the Commission within s 178, so the Court had power to impose penalties for its contravention. The respondents' issue of the two bulletins arose from a single course of conduct and therefore constituted a single breach, but the conduct warranted penalties because the respondents knew what the order required, no stay had been sought, the continuation of the bans was not trivial, and deterrence was required. Marshall was separately liable because the order bound UFU officials personally and he failed to displace the inference that publication of the bulletins and continuation of the bans were principally his decision.

Court Disposition

Penalties imposed on both respondents, payable to the applicant, with a stay of execution pending the respondents' appeal.

Orders

  • ['A penalty of $2,500 be imposed on the first respondent for its breach of the order of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission of 20 April 2005.' 'A penalty of $500 be imposed on the second respondent for his breach of the said order of the Commission.' 'The whole of the said penalties be paid to the...