White v Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union [2011] FCA 192

White v Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union [2011] FCA 192

The proposed penalties for the admitted contraventions by the respondents are within the permissible statutory range and appropriate, considering the circumstances, gravity, and agreed mitigating factors, including cooperation and proportionality.

Parties
Applicant: Michelle White; First Respondent: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Second Respondent: Ralph Edwards; Third Respondent: Robert Graauwmans; Fourth Respondent: Maurie Hill; Fifth Respondent: Stephen Long; Sixth Respondent: Brendan Murphy; Seventh Respondent: Michael Powell; Eighth Respondent: Shaun Reardon; Ninth Respondent: Gareth Stephenson; Tenth Respondent: Alex Tadic
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Penalty Hearing / Final Orders and Reasons
Outcome
Penalties imposed as agreed; application otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
Pecuniary Penalties, Unlawful Industrial Action, Coercion of Employer, Dispute Resolution Procedures, Assessment of Penalties, Deterrence
Industrial Law Pecuniary Penalties Unlawful Industrial Action Coercion of Employer Dispute Resolution Procedures Assessment of Penalties Deterrence

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michelle White

Applicant

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

First Respondent

Ralph Edwards

Second Respondent

Robert Graauwmans

Third Respondent

Maurie Hill

Fourth Respondent

Stephen Long

Fifth Respondent

Brendan Murphy

Sixth Respondent

Michael Powell

Seventh Respondent

Shaun Reardon

Eighth Respondent

Gareth Stephenson

Ninth Respondent

Alex Tadic

Tenth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Penalty Hearing / Final Orders and Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents contravened ss 38 and 43 of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth)
  2. 2 Appropriate quantum of penalty for admitted contraventions
  3. 3 Whether agreed penalties are within permissible statutory range

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed penalties for the admitted contraventions by the respondents are within the permissible statutory range and appropriate, considering the circumstances, gravity, and agreed mitigating factors, including cooperation and proportionality.

Court Disposition

Penalties imposed as agreed; application otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • A penalty of $105,000 be imposed upon the first respondent.
  • A penalty of $13,000 be imposed upon the second respondent.